Re: 'Cost' for an e-book

> Grapes Of Wrath. Kindle price £7.99, paperback £6.89

> No proofreading, no marketing. All that was done in the 1930's

I'm curious so lets run the numbers as close as we can:

Stross is quoted above as saying "80-90% of the cover price of a book has nothing to do with the paper and ink"

So if we assume 10-20% of the cost is printing costs and everything else if profit:

printed book profit: £5.51 - £6.20

ebook profit: £7.99

but ebooks charge VAT so:

ebook profit: £6.66

Amazon book fees are 0.86 + 17.25% of selling price for printed books and 30% for ebooks

printed book profit: £3.70 - £4.27

ebook profit: £4.67

So, based on cost, using these rough number and my (probably) dodgy maths, it appears ebook is 40-97p overpriced. But prices, and purchasing decisions aren't made on cost but on value.

> That is pure profiteering

No it isn't. Profiteering usually refers to raising prices during an emergency, especially on critical products. This is not profiteering but capitalism, the seller has the rights to sell this product at whatever price they want. If you like the product and the price you can buy it. If not you are free to look elsewhere or for something else. You could even contact the seller with a counter-offer but good luck with that.

> no such costs to recoup.

The aim of selling isn't just to recoup costs but to make profit.

Re: 'Cost' for an e-book

If the prices are a rip off then people wouldn't buy. As people clearly are buying these best-sellers then the price is acceptable to a large number of people. They may get more profit at a lower price with more sales, or they may get more profit with a higher price and less sales. Without seeing their accounts we can't possibly know.

Prices are not based on cost (+ reasonable profit) but on value. If people are willing to spend £10 on a book it is irrelevant if the costs are £1 or £9.

Publishers need to get the most profit they can from all books they publish. But (I imagine) the book market is really hard to segment. Traditionally the only segments are hard & paperback. Now they have ebooks as another segment.

But how do you price that segment?

Again, this depends on value, how much are people willing to pay?

Some people (seems like quite a few on the reg comment boards) prefer printed books and against ebooks on principle. You can't consider these people for pricing as no matter what price the ebook they will never buy.

Currently (I would hazard a guess that) most people value the printed work over an ebook, thus ebooks lose value (This may be because they think ebooks cost significantly less to produce).

However Ebooks have many advantages over printed books, instant download, easy to take on holiday, don't take up shelf space etc etc. So ebooks gain value.

Publishers view ebooks as another sales channel, so the per ebook profit margin must not be less than the per printed book profit margin or they run the risk of cannibalising their market.

It is perceived there is a higher risk of piracy with ebooks (which may or may not affect sales) so should the price should be higher to compensate, or lower to encourage legitimate purchases?

Also ebooks get charged VAT so they should cost more.

So how much do you charge for your ebook? Depends on how much the market values it not cost.

If you are hell bent on thinking about costs, remember you can't look at one book in isolation. The publisher has no real way of knowing which books will become best-sellers or flops so must cover the cost of the flops with the profits from the best-sellers. By taking risks on usual manuscripts they can discover great new (profitable) authors which benefits everyone, but they are more likely to discover a flop. I wouldn't like a market where all the proofread and edited books are about moaning teenage vampires.

Yet another thread to consider is the growing number of self publishers. When the costs of printing are reduced to practically zero then assuming you abandon proof reading, editing, commissioning book art and marketing and paying yourself for the time you spend writing, you can sell the ebook dirt cheap and everything is pure profit (apart from Amazon's cut).

Of course this means there is a huge number of cheap and free ebooks from unknown authors of various quality. Hidden in amongst this load of crap and spam there are a number of excellent books well worth reading. Some of these authors have spent time and money proof reading, editing, getting a good cover and generally polishing their work. However at the price they are charging and number of sales they are getting I can't see how they are covering costs let along making profit. So people are getting used to paying an unsustainable price for these ebooks.

This could be a massive threat to publishers, if they are no longer needed for publishing they how will they continue to exist? The problem that seems to be happening now is a lack of quality control in the market place and marketing. Quality control is really Amazon's problem (or Google books or Apple or whoever owns the marketplace). If this was sorted then the threat gets even bigger to publishers, high quality books from big publishers for £6.99 or high quality books from a little publishers for £0.77?

Publishers could reinvent themselves to provide services to authors, on-demand Proof reading, editing and marketing etc but this is a hell of a culture change from being a gatekeeper (and somewhat a reduction in grandeur) and there are already services offering this.

These days I tend to download a lot of free ebooks. If I find a book I enjoy and the author has other books for sale then they will get a sale from me. I get high quality entertainment for a fraction of the cost in a more convenient format. The only other cost to me is the time I spend reading crap books before deleting them.

I guess I'm glad I'm not a (big) publisher.

If there are pictures of people having sex circulating, that doesn't prove if it was rape or consensual.

So, like most rape cases, this comes down to the man (or men in this case) claim consensual sex, the woman claims rape. Hard to prove and get right, like most rape cases.

*If* the authorities did not investigate this properly then yes this needs to be investigated and addressed.

As you point out its up to the Crown to decide whether or not to prosecute and this will be based on the evidence supplied to them by police. I haven't read anything to suggest that they (the crown) made a bad call in this case. (Although, obviously I don't have all the facts in this matter)

Re: In South Australia

Two things:

>> Google Glass, (which among other things would be classed as a mobile phone under this law)

Really? Unless the law is really broad in its definition of mobile phone then this is one to be decided by the courts as it would be quite a jump to describe Google Glass as a mobile phone.

>> driver’s pocket or pouch excluded

Easy then, the actual Glasses frame is the pouch used to store the communication technology.

A fairly woolly law with enough leeway to keep the lawyers busy.

Re: 5 guys

If the price fixing happens between two (or more) sellers, you have the option of buying the product at that price, buying elsewhere (possibly at a different price) or not buying the product at all.

If someone robs you then you don't have the option not to be robbed.

Theft can also include assault, threat of assault, damage to property etc etc which price fixing does not.

Do you really not see a difference?

(AFAIK) Laws against theft are fairly universal, you can't take something that doesn't belong to you. Laws against price-fixing aren't. They vary from country to country and from market to market within countries. E.G. in the UK Magazines and newspapers are price-fixed and this is legal.

Re: So Google want to patent "HUDs"

although "Arthur C. Clarke, wrote detailed descriptions of the concept of a waterbed while hospitalized in the mid 1930s. His writings were later used as prior art to prevent a patent from being awarded in the 1960s as the waterbed started to become popular. " from http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/23/samsung_cites_science_fiction_as_prior_art_in_us_ipad_patent_case.html

So it really seems to depend on how detailed the description is in the book!

Re: So Google want to patent "HUDs"

from http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/

"A science-fiction novel might describe an invention without going into details. While this will describe the basic idea behind the invention, it does not enable the skilled person to construct the invention. For example, the famous Star Trek TV series features the so-called "transporter", by which Starfleet personnel could be "beamed down" to the surface of the planet. However, no details were ever given on how the transporter was supposed to work, or how anyone could build it. If someone today were to invent a working matter transporter that operated in exactly the same way as in Star Trek, he would still be able to obtain a patent on it. The disclosure given in the TV series would not be sufficient to destroy novelty of the features of his transporter.

That does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art just like a technical publication would. "

I an not a lawyer (thank Dog) but I read that as unless those authors/books described the tech in sufficient detail that it could actually be build then it isn't prior art

Re: They're both full of $#!T

Your car tells you "You have 30 miles of range" but you need to go 45 miles. In the last few hours or days it has been wildly inaccurate, both optimistic and pessimistic.

You have a Tesla rep on the phone telling you to they have diagnostic info from the car and charge for an hour before continuing and ignore the predicted range and it will sort itself out.

Are you really saying you would keep on charging and ignore the experts who tell say you've got more than enough juice?

"I'd have to be deliberately trying to fuck it up in order to write a negative review.". No. Its possible you deliberately fucked it up to get a negative review, its also possible you didn't deliberately fuck it up and still had a negative experience and wrote the review based on this.

Re: They're both full of $#!T - Someone is Lying

In a couple of places the two blog posts seem to directly contradict each other:

Musk says it never ran out of power, Broder says the car warned it was shutting down and then did. So either one of them is lying or the car will shut-down when there is power remaining.

Musk claims Broder was told to keep charging one the last leg and stopped "expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel". Broder states he was told to charge for one hour then continue "expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel". Again one of them must be lying.

Musk claims Broder took an unplanned detour through lower Manhattan, Broder claims he had a planned stop in a different part of Manhattan which added about two miles to the trip. Weather the detour was planned or unplanned frankly makes little difference as, presumably, every Tesla owner doesn't OK their journey plan with Tesla beforehand. I don't understand why Musk cares about this, unless it was a big detour not the two miles Broder claims.

Six days after the trip when Broder asked for copies of the logged data, presumably before the story was published (assumption on my part) "to compare against my notes and recollections" i.e. ensure his review was accurate. Tesla said they "did not store data on exact locations where their cars were driven because of privacy concerns". Later they published a bunch of this data that doesn't exist. So either he is lying about this, they lied to him about it existing or it was fabricated at a later date.

Based on current statements I believe either Musk, Broder or Both of them are lying. With such conflicting statements it doesn't seem possible that this is all just a misunderstanding.

Re: 5 guys

I wouldn't rob a bank with you as you are clearly hard of thinking, it's probably your fault we got caught anyway.

Apple and their publisher buddies didn't conspire to rob people of millions, they are accused of price fixing, that is offering goods for sale at a higher price than they would if they were competing properly.

Offering goods for sale at a high price and forcibly taking peoples cash from them are two different crimes with different levels of severity and hence different penalties.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW or should I say it again, S-L-O-W-E-R?

Re: if they can do this with cds, why can't they do this with books?

one step at a time, anon, one step at a time

Re: D'oh, for cripes' sake...

>>Sincerely,

>>

>>Sheldon Cooper

I think you mean Dr Sheldon Cooper

Re: Google claims HOW many active users? They hired Romney?

>My current "activity" is to allow Google+ to upload pictures from my smartphone--and I increasingly regret my choice of Android.

Then why do you have this functionality turned on? I remember installing the G+ app on my phone and it specifically asked me if I wanted auto upload turned on, seems a bit silly and a waste of data allowance if you have no plans of using it!

Re: "For some reason he doesn't want to submit to that process"

I apologise unreservedly for both the insult and the profound worry which I inadvertently caused

Re: "For some reason he doesn't want to submit to that process"

>PROVIDED he won't be abducted by US Agents.

I assume you mean he want a guarantee that Sweden will not extradite him to the USA.

This is a guarantee everyone knows they cannot possibly give as:

1) There has been no extradition request, so he is effectively asking they guarantee they will never extradite him not matter what the circumstances. (i.e a free pass to (unrelated) commit crimes in the USA)

2) No one has the power to give any such guarantee, and if they did it would be worthless

3) There is no justification for giving any such guarantee

That's like saying I will 'submit' myself to your legal process if you can prove 1=2.

I'm surprised that you don't know this and can only conclude either:

1) you have not paid even cursory attention to the case;

2) you are simply trolling; or

3) you are a fucking retard.

Re: The smoking gun..

I think this has been discussed to death on other threads.

Under British law (and, from what I understand, most countries laws) this is correct. However in Sweden it is different. You have to be interviewed, then charged, then trial.

Assange has skipped town before the interview takes place, so Sweden cannot charge him yet, although they have stated they want to.

This argument was also considered by the British Judge who said (something along the lines of) If he was accused of the same actions in the UK he would have been arrested and charged here.

This point is, I believe, well known by many commenting on this case but ignored as it is inconvenient.

Of course I'm not a lawyer so might have got this wrong, but when others have pointed this out its not refuted, just down-voted, ignored and then the original argument made again. (Oh damn-it I think i just fed the trolls!)

Re: Any chance of a bit of common sense

this is the most sensible comment I have read on the whole case so far

> are anyway his word versus theirs

so like 99% of rape cases then

> he risks being extradited the the USA!

I've read quite a lot of comment about this case, no one has *ever* made a reasonable case for this!

Personally I think the whole case seems a bit dodgy, but the only way to sort it all out is to have a proper trial. Assange has been accused of a crime an his response is to run. No amount of claiming 'its political' can justify this.

Re: I for one welcome our new dignified Chinese expo overlords....

You don't see any benefit to something, so it should be banned for everyone.

I guess you really did learn something from the Chinese (or the think of the children brigade)!

prior art [...] applies globally

So did the bbc get this wrong:

'HTC defeats Apple in swipe-to-unlock patent dispute'

""National patent laws thematically are very similar, but can be applied very differently.

"Not only are the tests different but also the evidence that can be introduced in different courts varies. If the Neonode wasn't released in the US it might not be able to be cited there.

"So the fact that Apple has lost this particular patent battle in the UK shouldn't mean it should be seen to have lost the global war.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232

Re: I wish they'd gone with Bing

I may be wrong but I believe FRAND applies to patents not services

TBH I don't see anything wrong with that, I think when it comes to negotiation its only natural to hold your cards close to your chest and try to not give anything away - who ever is (or appears to be) most willing to walk away gets the best deal.

It's why we have middlemen and brokers etc (well one of the reasons anyway).

A (kinda stretched) analogy:

If I pay someone to wash my car for £10 and they later find out I'm a millionaire, they don't get pissed that they didn't charge me £200.

<< Pirate, cos someone is clearly trying to fleece someone else, just not sure who is the victim!

Re: Double insult

"<-- My kind of piss."

You drink Carling?

Re: "even the movies often fail to get the genre right."

Sean,

You don't like a lot of popular fantasy; fair enough.

You seem to want to:

a) convince the world that things they enjoy actually suck

b) redefine a genre into something less popular / different.

Telling people that, essentially, their tastes suck and yours are awesome isn't really a winning strategy. Nor is it going to make you any friends.

I guess my point is: grow up.

Re: STA Travel...

The article does not say STA Travel have no liability for their misleading adverts, it just says Google *do* have responsibility for publishing misleading adverts.

They both were naughty.

I presume STA Travel were charged separately.

Re: I thought Google did this already

This is advertisers paying to have their dodgy adverts shown doing the bad stuff, not website owners getting paid to show adverts,

if I hired a taxi and told the driver to run over a bunch of people would he be responsible?

only the sith deal in absolutes

A boycott is a viable form of protest, but isn't the only one.

Petitions and letter writing are acceptable ways of letting a company know that you, as a customer, are not happy with their behaviour. If they ignore you, or decide to continue with their current practices then you as an individual can make a decision to take your business elsewhere, or not.

To suggest that the only option is for everyone to go straight to boycott, without first registering your discontent, is rather extreme and, frankly, a bit silly.

and if you do boycott, let the company know or they probably wont notice!

take a look at waze, on android and iphone (and blackberry)

I think you mean the sale of goods act, AFAIK the Consumer Rights Act doesn't exist, so they would be quite correct to refuse of acknowledge its existence!

"What if they haven't got any benefits to withdraw?"

thats just crazy talk

democracy != 100,000 people making a law

but a lot of games from the 80s/90s were fun!

A lot of the facebook style games need imagination, rather than fast paced fancy graphics, and people seem to love that.

To be an obvious troll:

The markets are intended to allow people to buy and sell assets.

These guys are buying and selling assets, so their behaviour is congruent with a markets raison d'etre.

>If the only benefit to the system is in providing liquidity

But if I buy a stock with my monthly savings the only benefit I am providing to the market is 'liquidity'. Should I be banned? (Hopefully I am providing benefit to myself with future value, and benefit to the seller who wants cash now. But that is true of these guys as well)

and to stop being a troll;

I sort of understand where you are coming from but, to my mind, there is a big difference between 'these guys are harming stuff' and 'these guys haven't justified their profits to the baying mob'

hell a tax on anyone holding under 5 mins would solve this

In fairness the site doesn't claim to do any testing. Its a bit odd it doesn't check you are running windows before marking for that but it is clearly aimed at the great unwashed who all use windows.

I wonder what score anyone running a Mac gets? This site does seem a little un-thought out.

Odd - AFAIK Opera was one of the options in that 'choose your browser' thing they ran with Win7. I would have thought all those browsers would work

You mean 268 not 253, and that is the highway code, not law.

in most cases you don't have this right, so you can't give it up.

Wanting something you don't have is not the same as giving up something you do have.

My habits seem to be becoming:

Turn Tv on

Begin watching

Go to kitchen to get drink

Get distracted, do some washing up

Start playing on computer

Girlfriend gets home, gets confused and asks why the cats are watching star trek

(Icon for my shameful waste of leccy)

presumably Alan has his own beliefs, why do you feel the need to shove yours down his throat?