Why? Because the music industry and the book publishing industry are so alike?
Music files are small compared to books. They are easier to create and release.
Books take serious time and effort to write. My father has 9 published books - each took years to write. Add in the editors, fact-checking, proofs and typesetting... even electronically someone needs to ensure the text flows well.
Also, distribution doesn't drop to zero for e-books. The books have to be stored on expensive SAN's connected to huge internet pipes and you pay for every bit you send. Consumers think - internet transfer is free or nearly free. If you transfer multiple terrabytes in a month - it is anything but free.
I worked in the publishing industry for years so I'm not totally clued out on these issues.
The issue of how much to charge is completely unrelated in my mind to the amount of money the authors and contributors of the book get. They usually get a pittance in either case and the lion's share of the profit goes to the publishers and distributors. In my experience it's a mistake to assume that the publishers have the author's interest at heart or even tangentially.
Also, in most analyses (this one included) the costs are seemingly being counted separately for both the print and electronic editions. This is just not reality. In most case the costs of producing the book are completely costed out (*and much more besides) in the original cost of the paper edition. The electronic edition is in most cases, "gravy." It's wrong to count production costs of the paper edition and then count them all over again for the electronic one.
I know I won't convince you, but the costs of producing and distributing ebook editions, especially of editions that already have an existence in paperback or hardcover (almost all do), are dramatically less than the old way of doing business. For starters, traditionally the publisher only gets 50% of the selling price of a paper book, but will be getting 70% of the eBook edition from Apple. When you factor in the much lower costs of digital distribution and
the fact that all the production costs have really been paid for already in most cases, and it's party time for publishers.
Secondly you ignored how they don't proof read or edit many books-that is up to the author.
Thidly, they use cookie cutter contracts that were written years ago by cheap. sleazy lawyers who knew how to bind the authors and rip them off.
Fourthly, the production costs and transportation costs of real books is enormous.
Fifth, if you are so worried about costs you should have listened to Leo Laport years ago and got a $15 a month Audible subscription and you'd have saved a lot-every audio book is discounted to members.
Stop promoting publishers lies.
A management company can make a living charging 10% from the contracts they procure for their artists, and that is the way it should be.
So pretty much exactly 25% less than the paper copies. Not good.
It should be roughly half the price based on the economics, the market and the precedent of music. The publishers are being greedy as usual.
I wish that Gazoobee and all other "experts" who absolutely know for a fact what a digital book should sell for would keep their uniformed opinion to themselves. As usual the market place will decide what the final prices will be .... but please, until then, do us all a favor and STFU!
So if you were a writer, you would be fine with them "selling" your books/novels at no cost, basically passing them out for free? Which is what you are saying and many others that feel online books should cost $0.
He never said that anything should be free.
But if one were to only see black and white contrasts, I can understand that his pricing structure looks completely black.
If the truth be told, he described a rainbow. But I'll admit that to some folks, it appeared identical to all other black areas.
I wish that Gazoobee and all other "experts" who absolutely know for a fact what a digital book should sell for would keep their uniformed opinion to themselves. As usual the market place will decide what the final prices will be .... but please, until then, do us all a favor and STFU!
Because market mechanisms work so well for nonrival goods...
Because market mechanisms work so well for nonrival goods...
If there is no rival that sounds like a great opportunity to enter the market and undercut the competiton. In regards to eBooks there is already a Kindle app for the iPhone will presumably work on the iPad. If Apple prevents the Kindle app from working on the iPad because it's competitive, then I forsee an antitrust issue, which is why I predict Apple will compete on ther merits of a single store account with iTS and a better reader app. They also need to make a Mac and Windows reader since Kindle has a desktop reader.
If there is no rival that sounds like a great opportunity to enter the market and undercut the competiton. In regards to eBooks there is already a Kindle app for the iPhone which will presumably work on the iPad. If Apple prevents the Kindle app from working on the iPad because it's competitive, then I forsee an antitrust issue, which is why I predict Apple will compete on ther merits of a single store account with iTS and a better reader app. They also need to make a Mac and Windows reader since Kindle has a desktop reader.
All good points as usual!
I will buy books from Apple first because , as you pointed out, the better APP is more like a book and might make reading an eBook almost as enjoyable as the real thing, I think, except for the stereoptic eye/brain advantage in decoding and processing curved page surfaces. But I don't expect we'll see an arched iPad reading surface for another year or so!
If there is no rival that sounds like a great opportunity to enter the market and undercut the competiton. In regards to eBooks there is already a Kindle app for the iPad will presumably work on the iPad. If Apple prevents the Kindle app from working on the iPad because it's competitive, then I forsee an antitrust issue, which is why I predict Apple will compete on ther merits of a single store account with iTS and a better reader app. They also need to make a Mac and Windows reader since Kindle has a desktop reader.
While I agree with you that not all (e)books should be free, the storing and distribution of ebooks is handled by Apple. So authors and/or publishers don't pay the storage and internet transfer fees.
On the other hand: giving away books for free has successfully been done in the past. It requires different business models, but it can be profitable.
Basing a spurious argument on a massively flawed book and premise is no point at all really. All costs except print/distribution are still there and as ebooks canibalize print
copies all this marginal pricing BS will be shown for the rubbish it is.
Music files are small compared to books. They are easier to create and release.
Books take serious time and effort to write. My father has 9 published books - each took years to write. Add in the editors, fact-checking, proofs and typesetting... even electronically someone needs to ensure the text flows well.
Sorry, but as a musician, I beg to differ. The costs associated with recording a hit song are astronomical. Many albums also take years to write, record, and produce.
The MINIMUM gear needed to record a song includes:
Laptop = $1000
Audio Interface = $300+
Vocal Microphone = $1000
VST Drum program (saves $$$ on drum microphones) $300
VST Effects Plugins = $??? (Varies, depending on effects needed, but a few hundred bucks at least).
Instruments/Amps/Keyboards/etc. = Likely a few thousand dollars.
We're already well over $3000. Probably closer to 5-6k. For a barebones, bedroom studio which, most likely, will NOT produce anything close to the quality of a hit pop song.
All it takes to write a book is a laptop. Or paper and pencil.
Making music is a FAR greater cash outlay. The time required is variable in both cases, and depends more on your artistic ability/circumstances than on the medium, really. Some books take a lifetime, others take a couple days. Same with songs. I have songs I've been working on for 20 years. I've written others in an hour.
So pretty much exactly 25% less than the paper copies. Not good.
It should be roughly half the price based on the economics, the market and the precedent of music. The publishers are being greedy as usual.
The prices ARE based on economics. Econ 101 says that the selling price is based on what the market will pay - and has no direct relationship to cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
The pricing sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks.
Best sellers should = $9.99.
And pricing should be flexible on all other books from $0 - $9.99.
The only books that should be over $9.99 are large medical books, and maybe textbooks or programming books etc. No novels should be over $10. It's a digital file that downloads in 20 seconds, they get the money--boom. Digital reading of books has a great future if only the publishers could actually see it.
Then go write your own books and you can price them wherever you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I worked in the publishing industry for years so I'm not totally clued out on these issues.
The issue of how much to charge is completely unrelated in my mind to the amount of money the authors and contributors of the book get. They usually get a pittance in either case and the lion's share of the profit goes to the publishers and distributors. In my experience it's a mistake to assume that the publishers have the author's interest at heart or even tangentially.
Also, in most analyses (this one included) the costs are seemingly being counted separately for both the print and electronic editions. This is just not reality. In most case the costs of producing the book are completely costed out (*and much more besides) in the original cost of the paper edition. The electronic edition is in most cases, "gravy." It's wrong to count production costs of the paper edition and then count them all over again for the electronic one.
I know I won't convince you, but the costs of producing and distributing ebook editions, especially of editions that already have an existence in paperback or hardcover (almost all do), are dramatically less than the old way of doing business. For starters, traditionally the publisher only gets 50% of the selling price of a paper book, but will be getting 70% of the eBook edition from Apple. When you factor in the much lower costs of digital distribution and
the fact that all the production costs have really been paid for already in most cases, and it's party time for publishers.
If you're really familiar with publishing, then you ought to realize that the selling price has nothing to do with the cost and everything to do with what the market will bear. For example, a 200 page science text isn't that much more expensive to print than a 200 page best seller or a 200 page older book (ignoring the preparation costs which are close to the same for eBooks as for print). Yet the text book sells for $200, the best seller sells for $25, and the older book sells for $6.99 in a book store. Your cost-based analysis doesn't justify that.
An eBook might be worth more or less than a print book. More because it's harder to lose or tear a page and I'm willing to pay extra for the convenience of carrying 100 books with me. OTOH, some people will think it's worth less because they like the feel of the paper books and because they are probably easier to read than eInk or LCD. Apple (and now Amazon) has decided that about 25% less than print is about right.
The market will either agree or disagree - in which case Apple may have to change prices later. But the bottom line is that it's about the market, not about the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
He never said that anything should be free. .
Yes, he did. He said 'variable pricing from $0 to $9.99'. Last time I checked, $0 was 'free'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitlnoize
Sorry, but as a musician, I beg to differ. The costs associated with recording a hit song are astronomical. Many albums also take years to write, record, and produce.
The MINIMUM gear needed to record a song includes:
Laptop = $1000
Audio Interface = $300+
Vocal Microphone = $1000
VST Drum program (saves $$$ on drum microphones) $300
VST Effects Plugins = $??? (Varies, depending on effects needed, but a few hundred bucks at least).
Instruments/Amps/Keyboards/etc. = Likely a few thousand dollars.
We're already well over $3000. Probably closer to 5-6k. For a barebones, bedroom studio which, most likely, will NOT produce anything close to the quality of a hit pop song.
All it takes to write a book is a laptop. Or paper and pencil.
Making music is a FAR greater cash outlay. The time required is variable in both cases, and depends more on your artistic ability/circumstances than on the medium, really. Some books take a lifetime, others take a couple days. Same with songs. I have songs I've been working on for 20 years. I've written others in an hour.
Once again, it's not really relevant (although your costs are probably pretty close - I have a friend who just recorded an album for $15 K). The selling price is not controlled by the cost - it's controlled by the market. The market has determined that songs are worth something like $0.99 and books are worth something like ten times as much (presumably because most people own more music than books and the music provides a much shorter period of enjoyment). Another example? Let's take a top music band's recording of a new single. They are going to spend millions of dollars on a single song - yet the price is $0.99 -- just the same as your song's price. Even if you divide the cost by the number sold, the ratio comes out very different than your song - yet the selling price is the same.
Comments
Why? Because the music industry and the book publishing industry are so alike?
Music files are small compared to books. They are easier to create and release.
Books take serious time and effort to write. My father has 9 published books - each took years to write. Add in the editors, fact-checking, proofs and typesetting... even electronically someone needs to ensure the text flows well.
Also, distribution doesn't drop to zero for e-books. The books have to be stored on expensive SAN's connected to huge internet pipes and you pay for every bit you send. Consumers think - internet transfer is free or nearly free. If you transfer multiple terrabytes in a month - it is anything but free.
I worked in the publishing industry for years so I'm not totally clued out on these issues.
The issue of how much to charge is completely unrelated in my mind to the amount of money the authors and contributors of the book get. They usually get a pittance in either case and the lion's share of the profit goes to the publishers and distributors. In my experience it's a mistake to assume that the publishers have the author's interest at heart or even tangentially.
Also, in most analyses (this one included) the costs are seemingly being counted separately for both the print and electronic editions. This is just not reality. In most case the costs of producing the book are completely costed out (*and much more besides) in the original cost of the paper edition. The electronic edition is in most cases, "gravy." It's wrong to count production costs of the paper edition and then count them all over again for the electronic one.
I know I won't convince you, but the costs of producing and distributing ebook editions, especially of editions that already have an existence in paperback or hardcover (almost all do), are dramatically less than the old way of doing business. For starters, traditionally the publisher only gets 50% of the selling price of a paper book, but will be getting 70% of the eBook edition from Apple. When you factor in the much lower costs of digital distribution and
the fact that all the production costs have really been paid for already in most cases, and it's party time for publishers.
You ignored my point about who these guys are!!!!
Secondly you ignored how they don't proof read or edit many books-that is up to the author.
Thidly, they use cookie cutter contracts that were written years ago by cheap. sleazy lawyers who knew how to bind the authors and rip them off.
Fourthly, the production costs and transportation costs of real books is enormous.
Fifth, if you are so worried about costs you should have listened to Leo Laport years ago and got a $15 a month Audible subscription and you'd have saved a lot-every audio book is discounted to members.
Stop promoting publishers lies.
A management company can make a living charging 10% from the contracts they procure for their artists, and that is the way it should be.
So pretty much exactly 25% less than the paper copies. Not good.
It should be roughly half the price based on the economics, the market and the precedent of music. The publishers are being greedy as usual.
I wish that Gazoobee and all other "experts" who absolutely know for a fact what a digital book should sell for would keep their uniformed opinion to themselves. As usual the market place will decide what the final prices will be .... but please, until then, do us all a favor and STFU!
So if you were a writer, you would be fine with them "selling" your books/novels at no cost, basically passing them out for free? Which is what you are saying and many others that feel online books should cost $0.
He never said that anything should be free.
But if one were to only see black and white contrasts, I can understand that his pricing structure looks completely black.
If the truth be told, he described a rainbow. But I'll admit that to some folks, it appeared identical to all other black areas.
I wish that Gazoobee and all other "experts" who absolutely know for a fact what a digital book should sell for would keep their uniformed opinion to themselves. As usual the market place will decide what the final prices will be .... but please, until then, do us all a favor and STFU!
Because market mechanisms work so well for nonrival goods...
Because market mechanisms work so well for nonrival goods...
If there is no rival that sounds like a great opportunity to enter the market and undercut the competiton. In regards to eBooks there is already a Kindle app for the iPhone will presumably work on the iPad. If Apple prevents the Kindle app from working on the iPad because it's competitive, then I forsee an antitrust issue, which is why I predict Apple will compete on ther merits of a single store account with iTS and a better reader app. They also need to make a Mac and Windows reader since Kindle has a desktop reader.
If there is no rival that sounds like a great opportunity to enter the market and undercut the competiton. In regards to eBooks there is already a Kindle app for the iPhone which will presumably work on the iPad. If Apple prevents the Kindle app from working on the iPad because it's competitive, then I forsee an antitrust issue, which is why I predict Apple will compete on ther merits of a single store account with iTS and a better reader app. They also need to make a Mac and Windows reader since Kindle has a desktop reader.
All good points as usual!
I will buy books from Apple first because , as you pointed out, the better APP is more like a book and might make reading an eBook almost as enjoyable as the real thing, I think, except for the stereoptic eye/brain advantage in decoding and processing curved page surfaces. But I don't expect we'll see an arched iPad reading surface for another year or so!
If there is no rival that sounds like a great opportunity to enter the market and undercut the competiton. In regards to eBooks there is already a Kindle app for the iPad will presumably work on the iPad. If Apple prevents the Kindle app from working on the iPad because it's competitive, then I forsee an antitrust issue, which is why I predict Apple will compete on ther merits of a single store account with iTS and a better reader app. They also need to make a Mac and Windows reader since Kindle has a desktop reader.
That's not...what nonrival goods means...
That's not...what nonrival goods means...
Mea culpa. LOL In the future I'll try to read and reply while dealing with kids at McDonalds. Obviously my reading comprehension drops significantly.
While I agree with you that not all (e)books should be free, the storing and distribution of ebooks is handled by Apple. So authors and/or publishers don't pay the storage and internet transfer fees.
On the other hand: giving away books for free has successfully been done in the past. It requires different business models, but it can be profitable.
Basing a spurious argument on a massively flawed book and premise is no point at all really. All costs except print/distribution are still there and as ebooks canibalize print
copies all this marginal pricing BS will be shown for the rubbish it is.
So pretty much exactly 25% less than the paper copies. Not good.
It should be roughly half the price based on the economics, the market and the precedent of music. The publishers are being greedy as usual.
Please leave this place, and come back with something other than an utterly amateurish view of business.
Music files are small compared to books. They are easier to create and release.
Books take serious time and effort to write. My father has 9 published books - each took years to write. Add in the editors, fact-checking, proofs and typesetting... even electronically someone needs to ensure the text flows well.
Sorry, but as a musician, I beg to differ. The costs associated with recording a hit song are astronomical. Many albums also take years to write, record, and produce.
The MINIMUM gear needed to record a song includes:
Laptop = $1000
Audio Interface = $300+
Vocal Microphone = $1000
VST Drum program (saves $$$ on drum microphones) $300
VST Effects Plugins = $??? (Varies, depending on effects needed, but a few hundred bucks at least).
Instruments/Amps/Keyboards/etc. = Likely a few thousand dollars.
We're already well over $3000. Probably closer to 5-6k. For a barebones, bedroom studio which, most likely, will NOT produce anything close to the quality of a hit pop song.
All it takes to write a book is a laptop. Or paper and pencil.
Making music is a FAR greater cash outlay. The time required is variable in both cases, and depends more on your artistic ability/circumstances than on the medium, really. Some books take a lifetime, others take a couple days. Same with songs. I have songs I've been working on for 20 years. I've written others in an hour.
So pretty much exactly 25% less than the paper copies. Not good.
It should be roughly half the price based on the economics, the market and the precedent of music. The publishers are being greedy as usual.
The prices ARE based on economics. Econ 101 says that the selling price is based on what the market will pay - and has no direct relationship to cost.
The pricing sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks.
Best sellers should = $9.99.
And pricing should be flexible on all other books from $0 - $9.99.
The only books that should be over $9.99 are large medical books, and maybe textbooks or programming books etc. No novels should be over $10. It's a digital file that downloads in 20 seconds, they get the money--boom. Digital reading of books has a great future if only the publishers could actually see it.
Then go write your own books and you can price them wherever you want.
I worked in the publishing industry for years so I'm not totally clued out on these issues.
The issue of how much to charge is completely unrelated in my mind to the amount of money the authors and contributors of the book get. They usually get a pittance in either case and the lion's share of the profit goes to the publishers and distributors. In my experience it's a mistake to assume that the publishers have the author's interest at heart or even tangentially.
Also, in most analyses (this one included) the costs are seemingly being counted separately for both the print and electronic editions. This is just not reality. In most case the costs of producing the book are completely costed out (*and much more besides) in the original cost of the paper edition. The electronic edition is in most cases, "gravy." It's wrong to count production costs of the paper edition and then count them all over again for the electronic one.
I know I won't convince you, but the costs of producing and distributing ebook editions, especially of editions that already have an existence in paperback or hardcover (almost all do), are dramatically less than the old way of doing business. For starters, traditionally the publisher only gets 50% of the selling price of a paper book, but will be getting 70% of the eBook edition from Apple. When you factor in the much lower costs of digital distribution and
the fact that all the production costs have really been paid for already in most cases, and it's party time for publishers.
If you're really familiar with publishing, then you ought to realize that the selling price has nothing to do with the cost and everything to do with what the market will bear. For example, a 200 page science text isn't that much more expensive to print than a 200 page best seller or a 200 page older book (ignoring the preparation costs which are close to the same for eBooks as for print). Yet the text book sells for $200, the best seller sells for $25, and the older book sells for $6.99 in a book store. Your cost-based analysis doesn't justify that.
An eBook might be worth more or less than a print book. More because it's harder to lose or tear a page and I'm willing to pay extra for the convenience of carrying 100 books with me. OTOH, some people will think it's worth less because they like the feel of the paper books and because they are probably easier to read than eInk or LCD. Apple (and now Amazon) has decided that about 25% less than print is about right.
The market will either agree or disagree - in which case Apple may have to change prices later. But the bottom line is that it's about the market, not about the costs.
He never said that anything should be free. .
Yes, he did. He said 'variable pricing from $0 to $9.99'. Last time I checked, $0 was 'free'.
Sorry, but as a musician, I beg to differ. The costs associated with recording a hit song are astronomical. Many albums also take years to write, record, and produce.
The MINIMUM gear needed to record a song includes:
Laptop = $1000
Audio Interface = $300+
Vocal Microphone = $1000
VST Drum program (saves $$$ on drum microphones) $300
VST Effects Plugins = $??? (Varies, depending on effects needed, but a few hundred bucks at least).
Instruments/Amps/Keyboards/etc. = Likely a few thousand dollars.
We're already well over $3000. Probably closer to 5-6k. For a barebones, bedroom studio which, most likely, will NOT produce anything close to the quality of a hit pop song.
All it takes to write a book is a laptop. Or paper and pencil.
Making music is a FAR greater cash outlay. The time required is variable in both cases, and depends more on your artistic ability/circumstances than on the medium, really. Some books take a lifetime, others take a couple days. Same with songs. I have songs I've been working on for 20 years. I've written others in an hour.
Once again, it's not really relevant (although your costs are probably pretty close - I have a friend who just recorded an album for $15 K). The selling price is not controlled by the cost - it's controlled by the market. The market has determined that songs are worth something like $0.99 and books are worth something like ten times as much (presumably because most people own more music than books and the music provides a much shorter period of enjoyment). Another example? Let's take a top music band's recording of a new single. They are going to spend millions of dollars on a single song - yet the price is $0.99 -- just the same as your song's price. Even if you divide the cost by the number sold, the ratio comes out very different than your song - yet the selling price is the same.
SELLING PRICE IS NOT DRIVEN BY COST.