5 ms·

I mean you’re tying value to cost which is weird for art (which is the majority of e-books, novels) This is like complaining a painting is too expensive becaus

by moate 6y ago

I mean you’re tying value to cost which is weird for art (which is the majority of e-books, novels) This is like complaining a painting is too expensive because the canvas and paint only cost 100 dollars. The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on.

austhrow743 6y ago
Forget art, they're a software developer working for a software company that produces software for other software developers. Zero physical items created. Sit around all day getting paid great money to produce nothing tangible and then thinks something dodgy must be happening for ebooks to be close to physical books in price. Very odd.
Nullabillity 6y ago
Price = value of art + distribution cost The art itself hasn't changed, so it makes sense to demand that the price follows when the distribution cost approaches zero. As for whether that would actually happen...
valuearb 6y ago
From the Department of Justices perspective value is tied to price. They wanted to stop Apple from asking for price parity with other outlets because it would drive prices up. And what happened after their victory is that prices didn’t go down, they look like they went up. Of course this has little to do with the artists, they typically don’t get to price their novels, and only get a royalty that’s not likely impacted much either way. Higher prices are higher royalties per unit, sure, but if they lead to lower unit sales it’s not likely better.
kelnos 6y ago
> The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on. Yes, and that's exactly my point. If a paperback book is priced at $10, and it costs $2 to manufacture, $1 to ship, and $3 to market (made-up numbers, but the values don't matter), with the rest going to the author/publisher, then we're saying that piece of art is worth $4. If the e-book edition costs $8, perhaps that $3 marketing cost is still there, but the marginal cost of storage and distribution is probably a few cents... so somehow now that piece of art is worth $7? That doesn't add up. I mean, I get it: the price you pay for something is generally just the highest price that the market will bear, a price that maximizes profit... and the "intrinsic value" of something doesn't matter or maybe doesn't even exist. Even the cost to produce it may not matter, if the seller wants to use a particular item as a loss-leader. What I object to is, back when e-books started being a thing, the big promise was that they'd be so much cheaper than physical books, because the marginal cost to "produce" and "ship" one is near-zero. But of course that promise never materialized; it was just marketing to get people to buy Kindles.

by moate 6y ago

austhrow743 6y ago

Forget art, they're a software developer working for a software company that produces software for other software developers. Zero physical items created. Sit around all day getting paid great money to produce nothing tangible and then thinks something dodgy must be happening for ebooks to be close to physical books in price. Very odd.

Nullabillity 6y ago

Price = value of art + distribution cost The art itself hasn't changed, so it makes sense to demand that the price follows when the distribution cost approaches zero. As for whether that would actually happen...

valuearb 6y ago

From the Department of Justices perspective value is tied to price. They wanted to stop Apple from asking for price parity with other outlets because it would drive prices up. And what happened after their victory is that prices didn’t go down, they look like they went up. Of course this has little to do with the artists, they typically don’t get to price their novels, and only get a royalty that’s not likely impacted much either way. Higher prices are higher royalties per unit, sure, but if they lead to lower unit sales it’s not likely better.

kelnos 6y ago

> The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on. Yes, and that's exactly my point. If a paperback book is priced at $10, and it costs $2 to manufacture, $1 to ship, and $3 to market (made-up numbers, but the values don't matter), with the rest going to the author/publisher, then we're saying that piece of art is worth $4. If the e-book edition costs $8, perhaps that $3 marketing cost is still there, but the marginal cost of storage and distribution is probably a few cents... so somehow now that piece of art is worth $7? That doesn't add up. I mean, I get it: the price you pay for something is generally just the highest price that the market will bear, a price that maximizes profit... and the "intrinsic value" of something doesn't matter or maybe doesn't even exist. Even the cost to produce it may not matter, if the seller wants to use a particular item as a loss-leader. What I object to is, back when e-books started being a thing, the big promise was that they'd be so much cheaper than physical books, because the marginal cost to "produce" and "ship" one is near-zero. But of course that promise never materialized; it was just marketing to get people to buy Kindles.