Comment Re:Who buys them? (Score 1) 668
In terms of getting rid of the cold itself, sure. But some remedies treat the symptoms, and in that at least some relief can be provided.
In terms of getting rid of the cold itself, sure. But some remedies treat the symptoms, and in that at least some relief can be provided.
This has nothing to do with purchases, and is for the lending libraries only. It's primarily a maneuver to limit some kinds of fraud and scams, or publishing techniques that game the system. Amazon makes no more money by applying this change.
This is completely inaccurate. See all the other notes that this is for the lending libraries only. Amazon pays out the same total regardless, but they're redistributing royalties in a way designed to better reflect reader enjoyment. This change doesn't result in Amazon keeping any more money than previously.
Currently you can perpetrate the exact same fraud with botnets downloading the book and never opening it or turning pages. This only makes it harder than it presently is.
This type of pricing will encourage creation of cheap novels and reference material a lot.
There's going to be a mix. It may encourage larger volumes, as long as those volumes are good enough to keep readers turning pages. It will discourage really awful/cheap materials, because if readers give up on it the royalties will drop. It will discourage authors gaming the system by breaking up one long "book" into lots of short novellas, and getting paid, say, 10 times for 10 novellas instead of once for one novel. It will discourage scammy behavior like flooding the market with lots of promising titles with real junk (possibly copy/paste of other works, or procedurally generated stuff, not just poorly written) or behavior like trying to use a similar title to pick up accidental sales, where a reader downloads it and then realizes it's it's the wrong thing and gives up on it. All of those misbehaviors will be punished by diminished royalties. Where before there was an incentive to just get the download so that you can get paid, now tricking them into downloading won't cut it. There has to be actual value inside the book to earn royalties.
I don't think the examples you cite will significantly affect the program. For instance, stalling on a page while you sleep doesn't do anything. Turning to a page today that you don't actually read until tomorrow doesn't do anything. Turning one more page, waiting until tomorrow, and then deciding the book is junk that you're not going to finish, gives the author credit for exactly one additional page read, which is a minimal difference in royalties.
The AC is basically quoting directly from Amazon's email describing the change, so it's accurate. See all the other posts about this only being for the pool of money Amazon uses to pay for books borrowed through Kindle Unlimited or the Kindle Lending Library.
Thus, it must be a letter! Except in hexadecimal notation letters are numbers, so 1/0 is a color?
Well, in the real world you also can't give two apples to half a person, so this whole analogy is pretty off.
Just throw an absolute value operator around it, and you're set.
Yeah, the bundling drives me crazy. I get constant ads from Charter saying "get internet, tv, and phone for $30 each!" But I'm paying $60 for internet alone. Frankly, when their advertising sets $30 in my mind as the appropriate price for each of their services, I can't help but be ripped off paying twice that much. In other words, their advertising is making me angry with them.
I have zero interest in phone. I've asked about internet + TV, but for some reason that's $110, rather than $90, which isn't just a ripoff, it's insane.
Well, if they "throw garbage out the car window" on the way to the American mall, apparently that's like stealing. According to her analogy, at least.
You may have said a lot, but it was seen and appreciated. Thanks.
Or people's pallets really so fucked up they can't distinguish between different types of meats?
My palate may be screwed up, but my homonym detector is in prime form!
72 hours? Hah. Recently for me it was about two weeks. I mean, yeah, they autoreplied to the ticket immediately, and I got a computer-generated useless response half an hour later. But once I responded to that it was two weeks, and when that didn't work, it was two more weeks for another go-round.
Now they did apologize a little, and they said they were working on dealing with one really big backlog, so maybe it's not always that bad, but I was pretty unimpressed.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
