Thursday, February 4, 2010

ebook links

93 Percent of E-Book Owners Happy With Device

How Much Would You Pay for an E-Book? At the time I voted, these were the results:









Total Votes: 9,450
Why the commercial ebook market is broken by Charles Stross (written in 2007, still pertinent)

12 comments:

  1. Running that survey would be nice.

    As for yr. second sentence: Only because capitalism sucks. In a logical universe, DRM books would cost more to reflect the cost of the DRM.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The other day I asked my mother what she'd be willing to pay for an electronic book and she said twenty dollars. Then a couple of minutes later she said "Er- wait. I thought you meant electronics books." *snicker*

    In theory, she'd be one of the people you'd want to market e-books at since she reads a lot and her vision is getting worse... But she has less than no interest in buying them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd pay a decent amount if they would turn the feature that reads it to you back on. Audiobooks are really expensive, but they are great for long drives.

    CC

    ReplyDelete
  4. CC, yeah. That's another greedy decision publishers made. A robot reader is not like books read aloud by professionals, but publishers don't want any competition at all. Under the circumstances, you would think they would offer an audio-enabled version for a couple of bucks extra.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What astounded me about the decision to turn off the audio was that it was a tacit (and false) admission that audiobooks performed by professional readers are not noticeably better than text-to-speech.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John, not quite. It's kind of like nobles killing peasants for poaching: if you want all you can grab, you don't tolerate the least encroachment on what you think is yours.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, so it's a matter of principle. That makes it okay then.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, I hate calling it a matter of principle, but you're right; they would. To me, it's just the logic of capitalism. They might call it the law of the jungle, but if they do, they're wrong: in the jungle, few creatures kill more than they need to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When I first read Cerebus, it was around issue fifty, a three-issue story with parodies of Wolverine and Chris Claremont, in which the Claremont character explained how Wolverine worked as a character: That if you had some personal code of ethics, no matter how absurd or destructive, and stuck to it, no matter how ridiculous or horrid the results, people would eat it up.

    I think that explains a lot, and not just how that statement could be called principled, from widespread support for repealing the estate tax to how Cerebus made it to issue 300.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cerebus had some mighty fine moments. Have you read the whole series? I quit during its run when it seemed to lose direction, but I sometimes wonder if it finished well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The last phrase was a cheap shot on my part, Will. I stopped reading regularly somewhere before issue 200, but did pick them up from time to time. Someday I will read it through. Despite some of the truly nutty stuff Dave Sim said--the first time I noticed it was when he kind of implied AIDS could be caused by plutonium put in gay bathhouses--it was a beautifully-drawn comic, often brilliantly written.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, I give Sim credit for commitment to his craft (standard disclaimer: so long as what was driving it didn't hurt anyone else). I missed the plutonium bit. I quit when his take on women started getting really loopy.

    ReplyDelete