Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Let's face it: the ebook market is FUBAR, thanks to pure greed
wraith808:
How is software a question mark? Every reader (even the doomed Kobo) has a software equivalent on the major platforms. That's one of the reasons I ended up getting a iPad rather than a Nook- I run stanza, eReader, Kindle, and Nook apps on it. When the last Dresden Files novel came out, it was only available on the Nook. My friends that had a Kindle were out of luck. It wasn't even in eReader format even though that format is the same as the B&N format. You could only get it electronically if you had a Nook. But I was still able to get it, because I had the Nook app.
--- End quote ---
It's alot like the argument for Final Draft or MS Word as far as "typing" goes.
Nook has one of the better business models (although I don't monitor e-book news so I don't really know of your specific tid-bit) but it's not a "killer app".
It's a great app (although I had assumed it was hardware) but it's taking the same model as before and just making it better or making it more interesting to interested people.
E-books though are bigger than that. That's why they are so hard to sell and the current business model is at the same time so easy to corrupt. This is all my uneducated opinion mind you but it's just what I see.
E-books have something bigger to them, that's why even though the final product is mostly the same - it tooked E-Ink Readers to get a small set of people interested in the actual idea of an e-book reader as opposed to a natural pattern where technology just caught up.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
The nook is the hardware and the app. I'm not saying it's a killer app. iTunes isn't a killer app. Most people don't even like it. They put up with it because of the hardware. That's why software isn't the issue- it's more hardware.
To the other argument about using PDF... did you ever experience the abortive effort by Adobe with it's reader editions? That was a very big fiasco, and there's one other problem with that- PDF isn't an open format. Adobe has shown this several times in trying to exert muscle over the use of PDF.
--- End quote ---
You're actually making my case. PDF is bad but why did it take this long before something like epubs appearing? Let's not even consider PDFs but factor in the difference between how many people know of every popular types of e-book readers from how many people subconsciously have an idea of what Adobe Reader is showing on-screen?
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
You're missing one part of the point. Adobe tried to get into it after the market started maturing. PDFs have never been considered a big format in the game. The formats from the beginning were .mobi (which is now owned by Amazon), and .pdb (which is now owned by B&N). People try to compare .epub in the same category, but the format was not created until 2007... well after the other two had become entrenched. Though the market was not as large as it is now, it was large enough that neither of them had any pressure to drop their format and change to a non-tested format. And both had secure and non-secure formats, so it wasn't like .epub was offering something that wasn't there. That's my point. An open format can't be an also-ran, or there won't be an argument towards moving to it, other than we don't want to use a proprietary format.
The RIAA analogy isn't based on software, hardware, or anything of the sort. It's based on content not delivery. And in the same way, the big publishers are the same as the RIAA, just not as in bed with each other, so not as easy a target. They rip off authors in the same way as the RIAA does with artists, they control the channels in the same way as the RIAA. They are the choke point, and the source of the issues.
--- End quote ---
Actually it's based on all of that but we're mostly talking about semantics at this point. Even if you just took the content argument, it's still not 1:1 comparison between how people share and perceive the contents of an e-book from a movie/song/audiobook.
They are one of the major choke points but let's not kid ourselves and think e-books or even books never had a marketability issue compared to movies and music.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not really getting the point here. There is a 1:1 comparison between books, movies, and music. They are all content delivered by a medium. If you give someone an empty cd, they have the same problem as if they have an empty book- there is no content. Add content to that delivery device, and you have a product. In both cases, there are other ways to deliver the content- digital being one of them. So the content is the big thing here- not the delivery mechanism.
Amazon didn't start the rise in eBooks. They took a risk, but it wasn't as big of a risk as you make it out to be. They did innovate, but they weren't the first to try. What they did was buy the correct technology, then leverage it with hardware at the exact time that the market was starting to take off. If they hadn't done it, it would have still happened IMO- there were signs pointing that way already.
--- End quote ---
Amazon didn't have to start the rise of anything. That's kind of the point of the killer app category right? It's not who begins but who ends up sticking around and growing and redefining the users.
In that sense, the Kindle was the equivalent of the first netbook. It wasn't the OLPC but once the EEEPC got out, you knew netbook was a category of it's own and even today you could make the argument that netbooks doesn't have as huge a market despite not having to carry a format on it's shoulders.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
The killer app analogy doesn't really equate in this situation. A killer app is something that is content that sells hardware. A whole different paradigm. And even if you do try to equate the two, a killer app is something that starts critical mass. With consoles, they have exclusives that everyone *has* to have... and once it's in their possession, the sales of other things on the console rise because people now have the big investment part out of the way. With the kindle, there was no killer book that made people buy the kindle. It was bought because it was cool, and useable, and people could consume books on it. *Any* device that could have satisfied those needs would have slipped into the same profitable area. It was just the Kindle that did it first, right as there was a critical mass of ebooks starting in the market. That's one of the reasons that they bought the .mobi format rather than making their own- it was proven, and there were *already* books in that format; only minor tweaking was needed to bring the content to market.
As with anything, it's the content that drives the market, not the other way around. There are other ways of getting content to the users, but without content, the deliverers of that content are dead in the water. So just as it is the RIAA standing in the way of the progression of the digital music movement, the publishers are the same gatekeepers for the switch from analog to digital in print media.
--- End quote ---
Is the e-book the content? Not really. In this topic alone, most everyone commented about the format more than the concept.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
The format isn't the concept either. It's the content within the e-book, and that's what the publishers control.
When you mentioned the exclusive Nook files, were you selling the book or were you selling the idea of certain exclusive books like how gaming consoles work?
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
To continue that ... the exclusivity on consoles is *again* content. The reason that it works like it does is because of the number of publishers. There aren't as many publishers of books as their are of games. And as the number of publishers dwindle in the gaming market, the number of exclusive titles also dwindle. Have you looked at what's exclusive now? Only games that are published by the manufacturers of the consoles. That doesn't really create lock-in. I want infamous, but it's not enough to make me buy a ps3. But if a large publisher consistently made games only for one console, then that would be more of a draw.
The RIAA is standing in the way of digital music that has pretty much been maxxed out except for certain audiophile people as far as everything goes.
There may be a better format but it's an uphill "upgrade" format at this point. E-books on the other hand, even if you don't choke that out, it's full potential isn't really out there yet.
Or rather you could say even if you accept all the current concepts and forms e-book selling has taken currently minus the DRM, it doesn't mean it has the same mass adoption yet so everything that's being stifled now is like trial by fire in my opinion to force content providers to adapt to a paradigm shift and that's really just my stance. I'm not really saying ok there's no problem, let's wait it out. I'm just saying it's not FUBAR yet. It may become dormant because of the corruption but it's this type of corruption that is going to upseat a new form of format acceptance as well as new forms of delivery and even opportunities for other businesses to "make up" for where these companies have massively failed and that still includes software even though now it seems e-book readers are known by most.
-Paul Keith (February 04, 2011, 11:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
Do you *really* think another format is going to come along at this point that's going to change the way that things operate? Unless it gives something radically new, I think you're dreaming. You can see that in the market even now. Sony has a hard time, and they have a lot of leverage behind them from other entertainment markets. Borders is a huge chain, but they came a bit late, and so are falling a dollar short... if someone that large can't make it, then who can?
It's more the fault of greedy publishers than of greedy eBook marketers. E-books make money for their pushers due to bulk -- the high quantity of distribution. It's the publishers who don't want their hard-copies of titles to be undersold that are driving up the per-book price of any given eBook. Even at that, lots of eBooks are still considerably less expensive than the hard-copy equivalent. Take, for instance, the Stephen Donaldson title I just bought for my Kindle. Total cost to me was $6.52, as opposed to the paperback version, which at $7.99 plus shipping/handling, comes in at over $10.00. Not only did I get my book instantaneously, but I saved $3.50.
But your more expensive books are not going to see such a discrepancy in hard-cover versus eBook price, because, hey, the publishers don't wanna lose money on that big expensive book (say, certain programming books, for instance).
-kyrathaba (February 04, 2011, 11:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
My exact point. But it doesn't seem that many recognize this- it's easier to blame Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Apple than Harper Collins, et al. Most people don't even *know* the names of the publishers. They just aren't as easy a target, especially since they don't have a self created one like the RIAA for people to focus their ire on.
Paul Keith:
The nook is the hardware and the app. I'm not saying it's a killer app. iTunes isn't a killer app. Most people don't even like it. They put up with it because of the hardware. That's why software isn't the issue- it's more hardware.
--- End quote ---
They also put up with it because often times that's the first thing they are exposed to. Most people are exposed to the idea of the e-books through the Kindle and the Iphone E-book Readers but there's not one true software that connects their minds to all of these.
With that said, I'd just like to clarify that I didn't mean to imply the Itunes itself was a killer app.
You're missing one part of the point. Adobe tried to get into it after the market started maturing. PDFs have never been considered a big format in the game. The formats from the beginning were .mobi (which is now owned by Amazon), and .pdb (which is now owned by B&N). People try to compare .epub in the same category, but the format was not created until 2007... well after the other two had become entrenched. Though the market was not as large as it is now, it was large enough that neither of them had any pressure to drop their format and change to a non-tested format. And both had secure and non-secure formats, so it wasn't like .epub was offering something that wasn't there. That's my point. An open format can't be an also-ran, or there won't be an argument towards moving to it, other than we don't want to use a proprietary format.
--- End quote ---
Do you *really* think another format is going to come along at this point that's going to change the way that things operate? Unless it gives something radically new, I think you're dreaming. You can see that in the market even now. Sony has a hard time, and they have a lot of leverage behind them from other entertainment markets. Borders is a huge chain, but they came a bit late, and so are falling a dollar short... if someone that large can't make it, then who can?
--- End quote ---
Not trying to dodge the point but I don't feel like I'm missing the point and at the same time I don't have anything to add except for pointing out that I feel there is a contradiction between these two paragraphs.
With that said, I'd also again like to clarify that I never argued for the format being the game changer in any of my post. It's a possibility but format does not = entire software.
The format isn't the concept either. It's the content within the e-book, and that's what the publishers control.
--- End quote ---
Actually semantically you could make that issue even more confusing by repeating some of the taglines of e-book selling which is that it's possible to avoid the publisher entirely and be a self-marketing e-book author.
I'm not saying it's easy or there's not a strong pull against that trend for many popular authors but hey, it wasn't like I was saying the format is the concept either.
To continue that ... the exclusivity on consoles is *again* content.
--- End quote ---
Not really. If you're looking at it purely from a technological view, yeah it leans towards that but for the actual consumers many times it could be something other than content.
The reason that it works like it does is because of the number of publishers. There aren't as many publishers of books as their are of games. And as the number of publishers dwindle in the gaming market, the number of exclusive titles also dwindle. Have you looked at what's exclusive now? Only games that are published by the manufacturers of the consoles. That doesn't really create lock-in. I want infamous, but it's not enough to make me buy a ps3. But if a large publisher consistently made games only for one console, then that would be more of a draw.
--- End quote ---
Which is why I feel the current situation is much closer to the Nintendo/Sega era than the analogy with RIAA but again it's all perspective. I don't really have a disagreement with your stance. Just adding my own 2 cents.
The killer app analogy doesn't really equate in this situation. A killer app is something that is content that sells hardware.
--- End quote ---
It's actually interesting. For me and my knowledge of the general hype of the title "killer app" back then was that you couldn't define it. You could explain it afterwards and justify it but for the most part, it's not "anything".
After all if it's something that "just works" then there's no point of differentiating between a killer app that changes the consumer culture of a market from that of a merely great app that the market finally accept.
As you said it starts a critical mass. My perspective for the future of e-book adoption is that.
With consoles, they have exclusives that everyone *has* to have... and once it's in their possession, the sales of other things on the console rise because people now have the big investment part out of the way.
--- End quote ---
...and I don't consider exclusive videogame titles (at least most of them) as equivalent to a killer app critical mass acception.
With the kindle, there was no killer book that made people buy the kindle. It was bought because it was cool, and useable, and people could consume books on it. *Any* device that could have satisfied those needs would have slipped into the same profitable area. It was just the Kindle that did it first, right as there was a critical mass of ebooks starting in the market. That's one of the reasons that they bought the .mobi format rather than making their own- it was proven, and there were *already* books in that format; only minor tweaking was needed to bring the content to market.
--- End quote ---
Actually if it was proven, then the market model wouldn't be stifled by DRM currently.
There's a difference between an existing market and a market that's ready for critical mass.
Same thing with the netbook analogy. You could always argue netbooks were close to possible; and really the OLPC wasn't selling itself as a netbook.
For me also, there wasn't a critical mass for e-books then. There was a growing market and Amazon tried to capitalize on it but if there was really a critical mass, you'd see it first in the shops and stores and libraries and how it cuts away at a huge element of real books.
That didn't happen because there really was no critical mass. Critical mass for me it's not just some fad that suddenly disappears and yet that's kind of the situation e-books have now. The focus is all on readers and price and DRM because frankly a single e-book is not as notable a discussion compared to the entire genre yet and it's like that because there's no critical mass that could have occurred. Not to mention again, the very nature of the word "critical", it's not something that evokes the image of being stifled secretly.
johnk:
I can't believe I'm jumping to the defence of the big corporations, but a few things need to be said.
To the best of my knowledge, printing and distributing a book is a minor part of overall publishing costs. I think a standard hardback print run for a mainstream novel costs less than £1 per book. So if publishing companies are looking to maintain the same level of profits on ebooks that they obtain on print books, you're not going to see a huge reduction in prices. But yes, prices should be slightly cheaper than print books.
Secondly, if you're looking to rip people off, there are many, many better industries to do it in than book publishing.
Thirdly, yeah, I don't like DRM either. I don't buy DRM'd products. Or if I do, I might choose to break the DRM afterwards (I have no moral problem with doing that once I have bought the product). But lately, I actually find myself sympathising with the book/music publishers. Because I know so few young people who will pay for digital files. Of any sort. Music, video, software. Many young people seem to think you're nuts if you pay for ones and zeros. Mass copying of files among groups of friends appears to be the norm. It has nothing to do with price. It's a generational thing. A whole generation is growing up that somehow seems to have no moral qualms about digital theft. If I were a book publisher, I would use DRM. There, I've said it.
And in general: I worked for a big multi-national for many years (not a book publisher). Yep, they are utterly and absolutely focussed on maximising profits in any way they can. It's their job. The role of any company is to "maximise the long-term return to shareholders". And who are the shareholders?
You and me. The vast majority of shares are owned by financial institutions. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Other financial institutions. Investing our money. The return you get on your pension or other fund, or whether your company/government can afford to pay you a decent pension when you retire, depends on how these funds perform. It's all circular. The pension funds put huge pressure on big companies to maximise returns. Because you and I demand the best possible pension when we retire. We "get ripped off" at one end, we get a better pension at the other. It's no use blaming "the rich". There really aren't very many of them. Statistically, they're irrelevant. We're the ones demanding a decent pension and the right to sit and do nothing for 20 years when we retire. So it's swings and roundabouts. That's how capitalism works. There are alternatives...
Renegade:
That's how capitalism works. There are alternatives...
-johnk (February 04, 2011, 05:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
Like what?
I can't see an alternative. (Practically that is, though it is *possible* to imagine counterfactuals.)
Capitalism is the new dictator. You either follow it, or perish. There are no alternatives and there are no choices.
Everyone, including the big corporations, is caught in its grasp. Governments are powerless to change the model. Even in "communist" countries, capitalism is alive and well. If you don't believe me, visit a few.
It's an overwhelming system, and it's dictating behavior for corporations. They do not have a choice in the matter. They MUST be greedy.
"All problems [in computer science] can be solved by another level of indirection." David Wheeler (de-emphasis added) :D
johnk:
That's how capitalism works. There are alternatives...
-johnk (February 04, 2011, 05:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
Like what? -Renegade (February 04, 2011, 06:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is veering off topic, but you're right that, in practical terms, we cannot all choose tomorrow not to live in a capitalist system. But we can choose how we live in that system.
"Greed is good" is now an iconic phrase, summing up an era. But I would argue that the really key phrase is "growth is good" -- the automatic underlying assumption in every economic discussion that more is always better.
I joined many other people in recent years by "downsizing" my life. Not just the "giving up posh restaurants" downsizing people do when hard times hit (I could never afford posh restaurants anyway), but more radical downsizing -- from big city to much smaller house in a small town, far less discretionary spending, a simple lifestyle. We can survive on very modest income. Recession is nowhere near the worry it would have been five years ago. We are to an extent insulated from it all. But we are much "poorer" economically. We have experienced severe "negative growth", as economists would say. But we are happier. It was a good decision.
If significant numbers of people made a similar decision, opting out of wealth generation? It would be economically devastating. Living standards would fall back by at least a generation. Would you be happier? That's the real choice we have today. And everyone can make it for themselves.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version