No, what would be worse is if APPLE had ebooks at 9.99, but because of the new contracts, Amazon had to sell it at 12.99. That would be worse, and I really think that'd be illegal as well...There HAS to be some kinda law against that kinda price fixing...
To be honest, I really don't think that's what's going on, but god damn...if it is?
It isn't. And that isn't what price fixing is, anyway. You should probably read the NYT article in full again. It seems to me that the NYT writer wanted to add a little fluff to his rumor piece by adding that discounts on best sellers could possibly go as low as $9.99, or lower, which was Amazon's price ceiling for bestsellers.
There's nothing in the contract, as far as we know, saying that bestsellers will be sold at $9.99, or even indication from the NYT's sources that they'll be sold at $9.99. They could be $11.99, or $10.99, or 99 cents. The only hard information that the NYT reported is that there's a clause in the contract allowing for discounts on bestsellers, which falls in line with what the publishers wanted out of this: flexibility.
Wait. Someone explain to me why we don't blame the publishers, and we instead blame Apple.
I'm blaming both. My "would be worse" clause mostly pertained to the publishers, though. (If you want me to go back over why I include Apple in the blame, let me know. )
taeric on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Wait. Someone explain to me why we don't blame the publishers, and we instead blame Apple.
Because it is the fun thing to do right now.
Kindle got just as much flak for it's "walled-garden" when it launched, and how you had to pay to convert anything, etc. etc... all amounted to alarmist nonsense in the end.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
No, what would be worse is if APPLE had ebooks at 9.99, but because of the new contracts, Amazon had to sell it at 12.99. That would be worse, and I really think that'd be illegal as well...There HAS to be some kinda law against that kinda price fixing...
To be honest, I really don't think that's what's going on, but god damn...if it is?
It isn't. And that isn't what price fixing is, anyway. You should probably read the NYT article in full again. It seems to me that the NYT writer wanted to add a little fluff to his rumor piece by adding that discounts on best sellers could possibly go as low as $9.99, or lower, which was Amazon's price ceiling for bestsellers.
There's nothing in the contract, as far as we know, saying that bestsellers will be sold at $9.99, or even indication from the NYT's sources that they'll be sold at $9.99. They could be $11.99, or $10.99, or 99 cents. The only hard information that the NYT reported is that there's a clause in the contract allowing for discounts on bestsellers, which falls in line with what the publishers wanted out of this: flexibility.
That is actually close to what price fixing is. Until. . . 2007, I believe, the MSRP was just that, the MSRP. A Supreme Court decision made it so that they could contractually hold retailers to it, though.
... that's actually a pretty good deal, and it would let Amazon (and apple) actually not lose money when a book hits the 9.99 mark.
Huh.
It is bullshit if true. Period damnit. The whole point of this was to keep Amazon from pricing best sellers at 9.99. To turn around and allow it is a complete sham.
Edit: Or, worse, a tipping of their hand to show that what they really want are higher prices on older releases. Which is also bullshit.
Take a look at this page of NYT bestselling (physical) books at Amazon
Now explain to me why a contract clause allowing for discounting the prices is a bad thing for anyone.
I'm not going to buy "The Lost City of Z" on the iBookstore or the Kindle Store for $12.99 if I can buy the paperback for $9.32. Just like I'm not going to buy a digital version of "The Help" for even $9.99 if I can buy the fucking hardcover for $9.50.
The clause allows them to stay competitive with physical book prices. Consumers won't pay more for digital content, so they need to be allowed to drop the prices to compensate, or eBook sales will fall. Amazon has a similar clause, since you'll note that "The Help" is $8.55 on the Kindle Store, well below their $9.99 price ceiling on bestsellers.
Ill pay 3 bucks more for the ability to get rid of book clutter in my house. Honestly I dont need to impress anyone with a witty and carefully purchased bookshelf.
... that's actually a pretty good deal, and it would let Amazon (and apple) actually not lose money when a book hits the 9.99 mark.
Huh.
It is bullshit if true. Period damnit. The whole point of this was to keep Amazon from pricing best sellers at 9.99. To turn around and allow it is a complete sham.
Edit: Or, worse, a tipping of their hand to show that what they really want are higher prices on older releases. Which is also bullshit.
Take a look at this page of NYT bestselling (physical) books at Amazon
Now explain to me why a contract clause allowing for discounting the prices is a bad thing for anyone.
I'm not going to buy "The Lost City of Z" on the iBookstore or the Kindle Store for $12.99 if I can buy the paperback for $9.32. Just like I'm not going to buy a digital version of "The Help" for even $9.99 if I can buy the fucking hardcover for $9.50.
The clause allows them to stay competitive with physical book prices. Consumers won't pay more for digital content, so they need to be allowed to drop the prices to compensate, or eBook sales will fall. Amazon has a similar clause, since you'll note that "The Help" is $8.55 on the Kindle Store, well below their $9.99 price ceiling on bestsellers.
The allowing of discount prices is exactly what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with upon entry into this market. This is either a huge eating of crow by the publishers. A rumor with no merit. Or Apple and the publishers working together to fuck over Amazon.
... that's actually a pretty good deal, and it would let Amazon (and apple) actually not lose money when a book hits the 9.99 mark.
Huh.
It is bullshit if true. Period damnit. The whole point of this was to keep Amazon from pricing best sellers at 9.99. To turn around and allow it is a complete sham.
Edit: Or, worse, a tipping of their hand to show that what they really want are higher prices on older releases. Which is also bullshit.
Take a look at this page of NYT bestselling (physical) books at Amazon
Now explain to me why a contract clause allowing for discounting the prices is a bad thing for anyone.
I'm not going to buy "The Lost City of Z" on the iBookstore or the Kindle Store for $12.99 if I can buy the paperback for $9.32. Just like I'm not going to buy a digital version of "The Help" for even $9.99 if I can buy the fucking hardcover for $9.50.
The clause allows them to stay competitive with physical book prices. Consumers won't pay more for digital content, so they need to be allowed to drop the prices to compensate, or eBook sales will fall. Amazon has a similar clause, since you'll note that "The Help" is $8.55 on the Kindle Store, well below their $9.99 price ceiling on bestsellers.
The allowing of discount prices is exactly what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with upon entry into this market. This is either a huge eating of crow by the publishers. A rumor with no merit. Or Apple and the publishers working together to fuck over Amazon.
Or some one finally let an economist look at all these plans that were drawn up by a bunch of MBAs, and hit hit them with some sort of rolled-up paper, while yelling about the fact that raising prices in a brand new market is one of the worst possible ideas ever, in terms of long-term viability.
Or some one finally let an economist look at all these plans that were drawn up by a bunch of MBAs, and hit hit them with some sort of rolled-up paper, while yelling about the fact that raising prices in a brand new market is one of the worst possible ideas ever, in terms of long-term viability.
I thought I covered that with "a huge eating of crow by the publishers."
I've decided that my only important requirement for a decent ebook pricing scheme, is to always price ebooks at no more than 70-80% of the current cheapest (non-used) physical copy of the book.
... that's actually a pretty good deal, and it would let Amazon (and apple) actually not lose money when a book hits the 9.99 mark.
Huh.
It is bullshit if true. Period damnit. The whole point of this was to keep Amazon from pricing best sellers at 9.99. To turn around and allow it is a complete sham.
Edit: Or, worse, a tipping of their hand to show that what they really want are higher prices on older releases. Which is also bullshit.
Take a look at this page of NYT bestselling (physical) books at Amazon
Now explain to me why a contract clause allowing for discounting the prices is a bad thing for anyone.
I'm not going to buy "The Lost City of Z" on the iBookstore or the Kindle Store for $12.99 if I can buy the paperback for $9.32. Just like I'm not going to buy a digital version of "The Help" for even $9.99 if I can buy the fucking hardcover for $9.50.
The clause allows them to stay competitive with physical book prices. Consumers won't pay more for digital content, so they need to be allowed to drop the prices to compensate, or eBook sales will fall. Amazon has a similar clause, since you'll note that "The Help" is $8.55 on the Kindle Store, well below their $9.99 price ceiling on bestsellers.
The allowing of discount prices is exactly what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with upon entry into this market. This is either a huge eating of crow by the publishers. A rumor with no merit. Or Apple and the publishers working together to fuck over Amazon.
Actually, the forcing of a discount price across the board, on bestsellers, is what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with. They weren't unhappy that books were being sold at $9.99, they were unhappy that every single one of their books were being sold at $9.99 and that there was nothing they could do about it.
I chose some really cheap NYT bestsellers in my example to show why the ability to discount prices is necessary, but you could look at the same page and see books at higher prices where the Kindle edition offers a significant discount. The publishers wanted to close the pricing gap to allow physical books to stay competitive in the minds of customers, which is exactly what they're getting. I'd assume a book like the $14.00 Worst Case would be priced around the $11.99 mark for the iBooks version, instead of the far lower discount price of $8.55 (39% off) that Amazon wants for the Kindle edition.
The point is variable pricing to keep the option of paper books enticing to consumers. Amazon offers Kindle eBooks for NYT Bestsellers at $9.99 or lower, when in reality, NYT bestsellers represent a huge range of pricing on physical books, above and below that mark. Publishers want options, and Amazon wasn't allowing them to have any.
Actually, the forcing of a discount price across the board, on bestsellers, is what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with. They weren't unhappy that books were being sold at $9.99, they were unhappy that every single one of their books were being sold at $9.99 and that there was nothing they could do about it.
I chose some really cheap NYT bestsellers in my example to show why the ability to discount prices is necessary, but you could look at the same page and see books at higher prices where the Kindle edition offers a significant discount. The publishers wanted to close the pricing gap to allow physical books to stay competitive in the minds of customers, which is exactly what they're getting. I'd assume a book like the $14.00 Worst Case would be priced around the $11.99 mark for the iBooks version, instead of the far lower $8.55 that Amazon wants for the Kindle edition.
Holy fuck, people. They were specifically upset about Amazon discounting best sellers. Period. Why? Because those best sellers were typically hardbacks that the publisher was also selling for 27 bucks. (Hence all of the emphasis on Amazon taking a hit on books. The only ones they took a hit on were the new hardback releases.)
Now, they would also like to make more on older paperback releases. To which I say, "fuck you, publisher." Realize that Amazon only paid 8.55 for the physical book. This is their "bulk purchaser" price. Amazon just decided in the meantime that any extra profit they could make is negated by the loss of market build up they would see.
Edit: For an experiment on your thoughts. Realize that currently stores can set whatever price they want on the physical ones. They can not do this on the electronic ones. So, it is likely that 14.99 paperback can be purchased for 10 bucks somewhere, while the ebook will still be 14.99.
The point is variable pricing to keep the option of paper books enticing to consumers. Amazon offers Kindle eBooks for NYT Bestsellers at $9.99 or lower, when in reality, NYT bestsellers represent a huge range of pricing on physical books, above and below that mark. Publishers want options, and Amazon wasn't allowing them to have any.
I'm going to go all wikipedia on you. Citation needed, hard core. The only hoopla I recall was about how it was either take this new fixed pricing scheme, or have to wait X months to continue selling how you are.
Actually, the forcing of a discount price across the board, on bestsellers, is what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with. They weren't unhappy that books were being sold at $9.99, they were unhappy that every single one of their books were being sold at $9.99 and that there was nothing they could do about it.
I chose some really cheap NYT bestsellers in my example to show why the ability to discount prices is necessary, but you could look at the same page and see books at higher prices where the Kindle edition offers a significant discount. The publishers wanted to close the pricing gap to allow physical books to stay competitive in the minds of customers, which is exactly what they're getting. I'd assume a book like the $14.00 Worst Case would be priced around the $11.99 mark for the iBooks version, instead of the far lower $8.55 that Amazon wants for the Kindle edition.
Holy fuck, people. They were specifically upset about Amazon discounting best sellers. Period. Why? Because those best sellers were typically hardbacks that the publisher was also selling for 27 bucks. (Hence all of the emphasis on Amazon taking a hit on books. The only ones they took a hit on were the new hardback releases.)
So, the hardcover copy of Worst Case that I linked which Amazon is selling for $14.00 (MSRP: $27.99, Kindle Edition: $8.55), is not relevant to pointing out the exact issue that publishers have with Amazon how? It's almost like you're yelling my points back at me.
Now, they would also like to make more on older paperback releases. To which I say, "fuck you, publisher." Realize that Amazon only paid 8.55 for the physical book. This is their "bulk purchaser" price. Amazon just decided in the meantime that any extra profit they could make is negated by the loss of market build up they would see.
So you're faulting them for wanting money? Uh, okay.
So, the hardcover copy of Worst Case that I linked which Amazon is selling for $14.00 (MSRP: $27.99, Kindle Edition: $8.55), is not relevant to pointing out the exact issue that publishers have with Amazon how? It's almost like you're yelling my points back at me.
Maybe we're yelling the same thing at each other, then. The issue that the publishers spoke publicly about, was Amazon "devaluing" their new releases. Specifically, they wanted Amazon to sell at a price that the publishers deemed fair, not one that Amazon did.
Or some one finally let an economist look at all these plans that were drawn up by a bunch of MBAs, and hit hit them with some sort of rolled-up paper, while yelling about the fact that raising prices in a brand new market is one of the worst possible ideas ever, in terms of long-term viability.
I thought I covered that with "a huge eating of crow by the publishers."
I just want to give the economist who hit the MBAs their due.
So, the hardcover copy of Worst Case that I linked which Amazon is selling for $14.00 (MSRP: $27.99, Kindle Edition: $8.55), is not relevant to pointing out the exact issue that publishers have with Amazon how? It's almost like you're yelling my points back at me.
Maybe we're yelling the same thing at each other, then. The issue that the publishers spoke publicly about, was Amazon "devaluing" their new releases. Specifically, they wanted Amazon to sell at a price that the publishers deemed fair, not one that Amazon did.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. That is what they wanted. And the solution "offered" by Apple allows the publishers to sell books without a price ceiling. However, if the publisher recommends (or dictates) that a book be sold at $12.99, or $14.99, then Apple may then discount the book to $11.99 (or $9.99, it doesn't matter) to compete with discount prices of paper books or other eBook stores.
The reason that this is different than the Amazon plan is because the publishers were angry at Amazon's price ceiling. They want some books to be sold at more than $9.99. I'm sure that copy of Worst Case would be going for more than that, while some of the other books on that NYT bestseller page may be $9.99 or even lower. Hence, price flexibility. They want to ensure that their books are being priced competitively against the average price of real releases, not forced to be set under the $10 price mark.
A little more background on this is that publishers are certainly not trying to get the full $27.99 or whatever out of bestselling hardcovers. Bestsellers drop significantly in price because it's in the booksellers best interest to move more units. A book hitting the NYT list means it's going to have a large word of mouth buzz, and discounted prices and displays means that they might be able to place the title into that "impulse buy" zone.
The book then usually goes back up in price, closer to the MSRP, once the bestseller status ends and the buzz around it dies out, because then the only people looking to buy it are the ones who are specifically looking for that book. The customer who wants the book will be more inclined to pay more for it than the customer who's just about to buy it on impulse.
This wasn't really happening with eBooks in the Kindle store. Amazon wanted all books to be available at that impulse price, and publishers don't because that isn't how physical sales work. If eBooks are always going to be significantly less than real books, no one's going to buy real books. They want to prevent this. It sucks, but they're trying to save their industry, and they aren't really doing anything wrong in trying to do so.
Or some one finally let an economist look at all these plans that were drawn up by a bunch of MBAs, and hit hit them with some sort of rolled-up paper, while yelling about the fact that raising prices in a brand new market is one of the worst possible ideas ever, in terms of long-term viability.
I thought I covered that with "a huge eating of crow by the publishers."
I just want to give the economist who hit the MBAs their due.
This needs to happen more often.
I can agree with this. And I do hope this is the actual outcome. My suspicion is this is just a mostly baseless rumor.
This wasn't really happening with eBooks in the Kindle store. Amazon wanted all books to be available at that impulse price, and publishers don't because that isn't how physical sales work. If eBooks are always going to be significantly less than real books, no one's going to buy real books. They want to prevent this. It sucks, but they're trying to save their industry, and they aren't really doing anything wrong in trying to do so.
This is a slight misrepresentation. Amazon only had significantly lower prices to the point that they took a hit, on best sellers. They had stated that their policy was the default price of an eBook is what they paid for it. Probably plus a pittance to cover delivery, though I think most of that was actually covered when you bought the device.
There is really very little you can do to not paint the publishers as doing the exact same game that the recording industry tried a while back.
Let me just say this, and I say this with at least some credibility as someone who's entire livelihood up until several months ago was based ENTIRELY on Flash and related Adobe technologies.
I am happy that Apple is abandoning Flash, because they are offering replacements that are better.
They are doing what Microsoft cannot, which is killing off legitimately problematic technology with authority in a way that does not prohibitively ruin the experience for anyone. And, in addition, offering an alternative development playground that is, in my opinion, Stronger than Flash. To say nothing of http://sproutcore.com/ which is not quite ready for primetime but showing promise.
People view the iPad not having Flash as a detriment, but if the platform actually catches on, what it will do instead is exactly what the iPhone did to major websites across the board. And that is force them to develop sites that support the device well.
What major news website doesn't have a mobile site that magically fits the iPhone screen perfectly? The same will happen with the iPad. You'll see NYTimes.com and Amazon.com for the iPad, HTML5 driven monoliths, and then the rest will follow.
This might be the key difference between Microsoft and Apple. That is that Apple is not afraid of their customer base, while Microsoft is absolutely terrified, if their reverse compatibility policy is any indication.
I think that most sites that use Flash use it for, say, global navigation and those top story carousels and they should be able to do the same thing with javascript, dhtml, whatever.
Then there are sites that use it for video interfaces. Not sure how this part plays out.
I think it's stuff like really interactive charts, graphs, games, etc. that will still need to be flash-based.
Then there are sites that use it for video interfaces. Not sure how this part plays out.
I was wondering about that. Hulu uses Flash for DRM purposes, don't they? Is there a good way to do that with HTML5?
Hm? I don't think there's any DRM involved in Hulu's implementation. They do region locking, but they could certainly handle that outside of Flash.
I thought there was something in place to stop you from ripping the h.264 source from inside the flash container?
Sort of. They've got this weird DHTML encryption thing going on to disable anything but supported web browsers from accessing the video streams. It was their knee-jerk reaction to their content providers getting pissed off that people could watch Hulu videos via software like Boxee. It doesn't actually do much to prevent ripping the actual h.264 stream, since that is still possible (though slightly more difficult, and still probably illegal).
There are easy non-flash solutions for Charts and Graphs.
Also Apple does have some pretty slick URL technology that I think will ultimately allow you to launch on-device App Store apps from web links. So that could be a solution. You might download a "chart app" just like you would install Excel right now and when clicking on a properly formatted URL you'll get a popup to select an app to read the chart information with.
You can do some really crazy shit with HTML5. All that's needed are easy tools to facilitate the process.
That's pretty cool, apart from it eating up an entire core of a c2q9550 just to run smoothly.
So it's an improvement on Flash then? :P
Seriously though, if you can get a Flash app that makes all those dots fly around full-screen whilst interacting with the mouse and also do it all whilst playing music judder-free like that to not take up a core, I'd like to see it. And then I'd like to see it do the same under Linux.
I think that most sites that use Flash use it for, say, global navigation and those top story carousels and they should be able to do the same thing with javascript, dhtml, whatever.
Then there are sites that use it for video interfaces. Not sure how this part plays out.
I think it's stuff like really interactive charts, graphs, games, etc. that will still need to be flash-based.
Also as someone, like Jasconius, who's livelihood was flashed based until recently, I think it's great that we're having an alternative to flash for simple animations and controls.
That said, my experience on the iPhone with javascript performance has been atrocious. Especially with jQuery UI controls that provide flash like interfaces.
Posts
It isn't. And that isn't what price fixing is, anyway. You should probably read the NYT article in full again. It seems to me that the NYT writer wanted to add a little fluff to his rumor piece by adding that discounts on best sellers could possibly go as low as $9.99, or lower, which was Amazon's price ceiling for bestsellers.
There's nothing in the contract, as far as we know, saying that bestsellers will be sold at $9.99, or even indication from the NYT's sources that they'll be sold at $9.99. They could be $11.99, or $10.99, or 99 cents. The only hard information that the NYT reported is that there's a clause in the contract allowing for discounts on bestsellers, which falls in line with what the publishers wanted out of this: flexibility.
I'm blaming both. My "would be worse" clause mostly pertained to the publishers, though. (If you want me to go back over why I include Apple in the blame, let me know.
Kindle got just as much flak for it's "walled-garden" when it launched, and how you had to pay to convert anything, etc. etc... all amounted to alarmist nonsense in the end.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That is actually close to what price fixing is. Until. . . 2007, I believe, the MSRP was just that, the MSRP. A Supreme Court decision made it so that they could contractually hold retailers to it, though.
Take a look at this page of NYT bestselling (physical) books at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Books/b/ref=bhp_bb0309A_nytimes5?ie=UTF8&node=549028&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_r=0TE7X23QJVKMZFT0V2QW&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=82691682&pf_rd_i=283155
Look at the prices
Now explain to me why a contract clause allowing for discounting the prices is a bad thing for anyone.
I'm not going to buy "The Lost City of Z" on the iBookstore or the Kindle Store for $12.99 if I can buy the paperback for $9.32. Just like I'm not going to buy a digital version of "The Help" for even $9.99 if I can buy the fucking hardcover for $9.50.
The clause allows them to stay competitive with physical book prices. Consumers won't pay more for digital content, so they need to be allowed to drop the prices to compensate, or eBook sales will fall. Amazon has a similar clause, since you'll note that "The Help" is $8.55 on the Kindle Store, well below their $9.99 price ceiling on bestsellers.
A new low-point in human culture?
The allowing of discount prices is exactly what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with upon entry into this market. This is either a huge eating of crow by the publishers. A rumor with no merit. Or Apple and the publishers working together to fuck over Amazon.
Or some one finally let an economist look at all these plans that were drawn up by a bunch of MBAs, and hit hit them with some sort of rolled-up paper, while yelling about the fact that raising prices in a brand new market is one of the worst possible ideas ever, in terms of long-term viability.
I thought I covered that with "a huge eating of crow by the publishers."
Actually, the forcing of a discount price across the board, on bestsellers, is what Apple allowed the publishers to do away with. They weren't unhappy that books were being sold at $9.99, they were unhappy that every single one of their books were being sold at $9.99 and that there was nothing they could do about it.
I chose some really cheap NYT bestsellers in my example to show why the ability to discount prices is necessary, but you could look at the same page and see books at higher prices where the Kindle edition offers a significant discount. The publishers wanted to close the pricing gap to allow physical books to stay competitive in the minds of customers, which is exactly what they're getting. I'd assume a book like the $14.00 Worst Case would be priced around the $11.99 mark for the iBooks version, instead of the far lower discount price of $8.55 (39% off) that Amazon wants for the Kindle edition.
The point is variable pricing to keep the option of paper books enticing to consumers. Amazon offers Kindle eBooks for NYT Bestsellers at $9.99 or lower, when in reality, NYT bestsellers represent a huge range of pricing on physical books, above and below that mark. Publishers want options, and Amazon wasn't allowing them to have any.
Holy fuck, people. They were specifically upset about Amazon discounting best sellers. Period. Why? Because those best sellers were typically hardbacks that the publisher was also selling for 27 bucks. (Hence all of the emphasis on Amazon taking a hit on books. The only ones they took a hit on were the new hardback releases.)
Now, they would also like to make more on older paperback releases. To which I say, "fuck you, publisher." Realize that Amazon only paid 8.55 for the physical book. This is their "bulk purchaser" price. Amazon just decided in the meantime that any extra profit they could make is negated by the loss of market build up they would see.
Edit: For an experiment on your thoughts. Realize that currently stores can set whatever price they want on the physical ones. They can not do this on the electronic ones. So, it is likely that 14.99 paperback can be purchased for 10 bucks somewhere, while the ebook will still be 14.99.
I'm going to go all wikipedia on you. Citation needed, hard core. The only hoopla I recall was about how it was either take this new fixed pricing scheme, or have to wait X months to continue selling how you are.
So, the hardcover copy of Worst Case that I linked which Amazon is selling for $14.00 (MSRP: $27.99, Kindle Edition: $8.55), is not relevant to pointing out the exact issue that publishers have with Amazon how? It's almost like you're yelling my points back at me.
So you're faulting them for wanting money? Uh, okay.
Maybe we're yelling the same thing at each other, then. The issue that the publishers spoke publicly about, was Amazon "devaluing" their new releases. Specifically, they wanted Amazon to sell at a price that the publishers deemed fair, not one that Amazon did.
Will it make you feel better if I just say "nope, not gonna buy your over priced goods?"
I just want to give the economist who hit the MBAs their due.
This needs to happen more often.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. That is what they wanted. And the solution "offered" by Apple allows the publishers to sell books without a price ceiling. However, if the publisher recommends (or dictates) that a book be sold at $12.99, or $14.99, then Apple may then discount the book to $11.99 (or $9.99, it doesn't matter) to compete with discount prices of paper books or other eBook stores.
The reason that this is different than the Amazon plan is because the publishers were angry at Amazon's price ceiling. They want some books to be sold at more than $9.99. I'm sure that copy of Worst Case would be going for more than that, while some of the other books on that NYT bestseller page may be $9.99 or even lower. Hence, price flexibility. They want to ensure that their books are being priced competitively against the average price of real releases, not forced to be set under the $10 price mark.
A little more background on this is that publishers are certainly not trying to get the full $27.99 or whatever out of bestselling hardcovers. Bestsellers drop significantly in price because it's in the booksellers best interest to move more units. A book hitting the NYT list means it's going to have a large word of mouth buzz, and discounted prices and displays means that they might be able to place the title into that "impulse buy" zone.
The book then usually goes back up in price, closer to the MSRP, once the bestseller status ends and the buzz around it dies out, because then the only people looking to buy it are the ones who are specifically looking for that book. The customer who wants the book will be more inclined to pay more for it than the customer who's just about to buy it on impulse.
This wasn't really happening with eBooks in the Kindle store. Amazon wanted all books to be available at that impulse price, and publishers don't because that isn't how physical sales work. If eBooks are always going to be significantly less than real books, no one's going to buy real books. They want to prevent this. It sucks, but they're trying to save their industry, and they aren't really doing anything wrong in trying to do so.
Yeah, that's cool. They're just not really at fault for anything in wanting to raise their prices. Business is business.
I can agree with this. And I do hope this is the actual outcome. My suspicion is this is just a mostly baseless rumor.
This is a slight misrepresentation. Amazon only had significantly lower prices to the point that they took a hit, on best sellers. They had stated that their policy was the default price of an eBook is what they paid for it. Probably plus a pittance to cover delivery, though I think most of that was actually covered when you bought the device.
There is really very little you can do to not paint the publishers as doing the exact same game that the recording industry tried a while back.
http://9to5mac.com/ipad-safari-walkthru-video-4650470
zooming and scrolling looks great, and there are some cool interface additions there, like the Replace button on text, and the Save Image function
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/02/steve-jobs-to-wsj-ditch-dying-flash-technology.ars
Let me just say this, and I say this with at least some credibility as someone who's entire livelihood up until several months ago was based ENTIRELY on Flash and related Adobe technologies.
I am happy that Apple is abandoning Flash, because they are offering replacements that are better.
They are doing what Microsoft cannot, which is killing off legitimately problematic technology with authority in a way that does not prohibitively ruin the experience for anyone. And, in addition, offering an alternative development playground that is, in my opinion, Stronger than Flash. To say nothing of http://sproutcore.com/ which is not quite ready for primetime but showing promise.
People view the iPad not having Flash as a detriment, but if the platform actually catches on, what it will do instead is exactly what the iPhone did to major websites across the board. And that is force them to develop sites that support the device well.
What major news website doesn't have a mobile site that magically fits the iPhone screen perfectly? The same will happen with the iPad. You'll see NYTimes.com and Amazon.com for the iPad, HTML5 driven monoliths, and then the rest will follow.
This might be the key difference between Microsoft and Apple. That is that Apple is not afraid of their customer base, while Microsoft is absolutely terrified, if their reverse compatibility policy is any indication.
Then there are sites that use it for video interfaces. Not sure how this part plays out.
I think it's stuff like really interactive charts, graphs, games, etc. that will still need to be flash-based.
Watch my music videos
You can do some really crazy shit with HTML5. All that's needed are easy tools to facilitate the process.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I was wondering about that. Hulu uses Flash for DRM purposes, don't they? Is there a good way to do that with HTML5?
Well first HTML5 needs to become an official standard.
Hm? I don't think there's any DRM involved in Hulu's implementation. They do region locking, but they could certainly handle that outside of Flash.
I thought there was something in place to stop you from ripping the h.264 source from inside the flash container?
Sort of. They've got this weird DHTML encryption thing going on to disable anything but supported web browsers from accessing the video streams. It was their knee-jerk reaction to their content providers getting pissed off that people could watch Hulu videos via software like Boxee. It doesn't actually do much to prevent ripping the actual h.264 stream, since that is still possible (though slightly more difficult, and still probably illegal).
Also Apple does have some pretty slick URL technology that I think will ultimately allow you to launch on-device App Store apps from web links. So that could be a solution. You might download a "chart app" just like you would install Excel right now and when clicking on a properly formatted URL you'll get a popup to select an app to read the chart information with.
That's pretty cool, apart from it eating up an entire core of a c2q9550 just to run smoothly.
So it's an improvement on Flash then? :P
Seriously though, if you can get a Flash app that makes all those dots fly around full-screen whilst interacting with the mouse and also do it all whilst playing music judder-free like that to not take up a core, I'd like to see it. And then I'd like to see it do the same under Linux.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Watch my music videos
Also as someone, like Jasconius, who's livelihood was flashed based until recently, I think it's great that we're having an alternative to flash for simple animations and controls.
That said, my experience on the iPhone with javascript performance has been atrocious. Especially with jQuery UI controls that provide flash like interfaces.
No, just mobile phones.
And then, you know, actually be implemented correctly. Because we know how much of a success HTML 4 and CSS 2 has been!
EDIT: And I've knocked up a SWF doing roughly what that HTML5 page was doing (minus the music), used about 3% of one core to do so.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.