BF2S Forums First World Problems

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. They make more profit with much less overhead selling a digital copy of a book compared to selling a physical copy. They really only jack up the digital price on new releases, and then the price magically drops when the mass-market paperbacks have sold out their first run.

You can't make a profit if no one uses your publishing house. Did you not read where I said that the format is threatening publisher's monopoly?

I did a research: http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2011/03 … -than.html

Amazon is actually taking a loss when they sell hardcovers below the e-book price. They're banking that people will pay the extra $2 for convenience.

Jay, this is just unbelievably stupid. Why would they not consider opportunity cost as a problem? Probably because the benefits of cutting out the publishers outweigh the current short-term opportunity cost which actually amounts to only only potential being sacrificed, and nothing else. I don't even think it took an actuary to calculate that improving market share would be advantageous far into the future and likely to occur if you squeeze out publishers.

EDIT- it should be noted that Amazon is involved in both the ebook and physical book market. They don't have to bank on anything. They survive no matter what; it's just a matter of how much they can make in the future.

Last edited by Pochsy (2013-01-28 17:27:18)

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

You can't make a profit if no one uses your publishing house. Did you not read where I said that the format is threatening publisher's monopoly?

I did a research: http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2011/03 … -than.html

Amazon is actually taking a loss when they sell hardcovers below the e-book price. They're banking that people will pay the extra $2 for convenience.

Jay, this is just unbelievably stupid. Why would they not consider opportunity cost as a problem? Probably because the benefits of cutting out the publishers outweigh the current short-term opportunity cost which actually amounts to only only potential being sacrificed, and nothing else. I don't even think it took an actuary to calculate that improving market share would be advantageous far into the future and likely to occur if you squeeze out publishers.

EDIT- it should be noted that Amazon is involved in both the ebook and physical book market. They don't have to bank on anything. They survive no matter what; it's just a matter of how much they can make in the future.

Why would Amazon want to destroy the publishers? Nah, that's not a good plan for them. Who's going to discover new writers and do all the marketing work? No one wants to buy books from no name, unreviewed writers. They were trying to destroy B&N and Borders if anything, and in Borders' case, it worked. Publishers and Amazon have a very symbiotic relationship.

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

I did a research: http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2011/03 … -than.html

Amazon is actually taking a loss when they sell hardcovers below the e-book price. They're banking that people will pay the extra $2 for convenience.

Jay, this is just unbelievably stupid. Why would they not consider opportunity cost as a problem? Probably because the benefits of cutting out the publishers outweigh the current short-term opportunity cost which actually amounts to only only potential being sacrificed, and nothing else. I don't even think it took an actuary to calculate that improving market share would be advantageous far into the future and likely to occur if you squeeze out publishers.

EDIT- it should be noted that Amazon is involved in both the ebook and physical book market. They don't have to bank on anything. They survive no matter what; it's just a matter of how much they can make in the future.

Why would Amazon want to destroy the publishers? Nah, that's not a good plan for them. Who's going to discover new writers and do all the marketing work? No one wants to buy books from no name, unreviewed writers. They were trying to destroy B&N and Borders if anything, and in Borders' case, it worked. Publishers and Amazon have a very symbiotic relationship.

How do people upload their books directly? People won't buy if they aren't quality. It destroys publishers market share: they become copy editors, not monolithic gatekeepers. Sure they need them, but they don't need them enough to only take 30%. They're changing power relations, and may just as easily buy them out and create a division.

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Amazon is actually taking a loss when they sell hardcovers below the e-book price. They're banking that people will pay the extra $2 for convenience.

Currently, if I need more shelf space I just buy more shelves. But if I was plain out of room, I wouldn't have any qualms about tossing in an extra couple of bucks for the e-book. Meanwhile, I'm happily taking advantage of low hard copy prices and am not about to complain.

I have a bit of a book collecting problem, so I made the switch to buying used hardcovers a while ago.

Being a book collector myself, I can say for sure that sometimes the only copy of a book you can find is used. Unless you skim on top of new releases only, there's no "switch" to make.

I buy new releases all the time. books are worth the money.

RTHKI wrote:

not textbooks

I don't miss the days of $300 textbooks

Usually you can find about 3/4 of textbooks online for /free/.  I still prefer hard copies over a pdf any day.

Good luck doing that in the late 90's as easily.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I buy new releases all the time. books are worth the money.

Sometimes.

Jay wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

not textbooks

I don't miss the days of $300 textbooks

Try $300 psychology textbooks which are only useful as kindling long-term.

Well obviously you pick the ones you are gonna like..

includes free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet

shifty gave me an aneurysm,

I still can't work out if Sh1fty is a real person or the gruesome creation of a Frankenstein-esque troll genius.