Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper, printing, binding and shipping/distribution. However, only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs: about $5 out of $25. Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent, and after that, the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties, editing, design, marketing, publicity, overhead and so on.
So, the question is, does Amazon take 40 to 50 percent of the ebook price? I would hope not, as that 40 to 50 percent would cover the costs of running a physical store (floor space rental, back office and front office staff).
You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost. They aren't in practically any market, they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at. Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital "convenience" and the competition doesn't sell the same books.
No, I'm pointing out that it doesn't cost them anything to sell another copy of an ebook. And Amazon is right in one sense, they won't be priced at what the competition is selling at, because there won't be competition for a specific title.
Of course, a consumer could always buy a *different* title from a different publisher
That's right, because nobody markets books, or pays authors, or runs press tours, or edits books...
... and none of that has any bearing on the marginal cost of production of an ebook. The fixed costs are just that, fixed. The marginal cost associated with selling an ebook is *zero* (Amazon covers the cost of sending you the ones and zeroes)
Do you work for free? Why should people - you know, editors, typesetters, designers, copyeditors, etc. - in the publishing industry? And, even if the ebook is a digital translation of the print product, somebody still needs to make that digital translation and check it over to make sure all the i's stayed dotted and t's stayed crossed. Until you're willing to work for free, don't expect other people to do so.
I don't, but none of this has any bearing on the marginal cost of production of an ebook. The fixed costs are just that, fixed. The marginal cost associated with selling an ebook is *zero* (Amazon covers the cost of sending you the ones and zeroes)
It's not quite zero. You've still got the initial work for layout and editing, as well as the author to compensate.
Let's say 5 bucks for a "hardcover" and 2 bucks for a "paperback". Far more than they're making from Barnes and Nobel, and then Amazon could tack on a dollar to actually make a profit instead of a loss on selling these things.
That's not what marginal cost of production means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost
BS. Have you ever seen a kindle in bright light? You can't read shit. Even indoors if there is any sort of glare from a light shining directly on it you can't read it. The same is true for *ANY* display in direct sunlight outdoors.
As a Kindle owner, I call BS. I can read outdoors, and in brightly lit rooms. Yes, if you're shining a bright light directly onto the screen then it won't be readable. But you can still shine light onto the screen to read it, they even sell a number of clip on lights for this purpose.
I like the idea, but I'm not going to buy any eBook reader until I can safely read it in the bathtub like a regular book. Crazy, maybe, but that's my criteria.
I read books on my netbook in the bathtub, carefully...
Oh, and no Wikipedia surfing for you either.
And for all that, you get to pay more than in the US. Yay!
My Kindle is arriving tomorrow, so can't test now, but according to their site: Blogs and the experimental web browser are currently not available for your country. You will have free access to Wikipedia.
I am the one slashdotter that reads TFA (the full article) before posting. I even did a search for tryptophan. Nope, it's not there. Maybe the submitter forgot a link, but tryptophan is never mentioned in the sciencenews.org article.
I always thought it was The Fucking Article. Guess my mind is just in the gutter