3 ms·
> I disagree That doesn't make sense. You disagree with what? My expectation that it shouldn't cost much more than $5 for an ebook of something with a 150-ye
by cxr 3y ago
> I disagree
That doesn't make sense. You disagree with what? My expectation that it shouldn't cost much more than $5 for an ebook of something with a 150-year-old plot?
> $10 to be able to have it this second on my Kindle vs. waiting to get the physical copy feels like a good value
That's nice, I guess—for you. But we weren't talking about you, and we weren't talking about instant gratification.
If I'm buying for reasons where instant gratification isn't a factor—and I'd argue that for books, prioritizing instant gratification is even sillier than with e.g. food and drink or streaming TV shows—should I still pay the premium to be able to get something "this second" if my flight isn't for another three weeks and I'd have been perfectly willing to deal with a delay?
- paulcole 3y agoYes, I disagree with what you said – that an ebook should be priced lower than the print version. If you want the cheaper one buy the cheaper one. If you aren't in a rush to get it, buy the one that gets delivered in a week instead of in 10 seconds. If you want the ebook, buy the ebook. If you want the printed book, buy the printed book.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cxr 3y agoIt really reads here like you're willfully missing the point. > it shouldn't cost much more than $5 for an ebook of something with a 150-year-old plot > for a classic work [...] $3 or $4 sounds about right That is a direct response to your question to the other commenter about why Penguin's Crime and Punishment for Kindle is a ripoff.
- paulcole 3y agoYes and I disagree with you. I don’t think italicizing makes the argument more ironclad. $3 or $4 doesn’t sound about right to me. To me, the age of something doesn’t necessarily influence its cost. Saying “this book is old so it should be cheap” is something I disagree with.
- cxr 3y agoAt this point, you're just propping up and tearing down straw men—including your remarks about whether or not italics make an argument "more ironclad": nobody said it did. The italics are a response to your insistence in not engaging in the conversation you're ostensibly talking part in and trying instead to turn it into a different conversation that no one else is. > $3 or $4 doesn’t sound about right to me No one asked. You asked, on the other hand, a question about the ripoff comment, and that's the question you got an answer to. No more attempts at conversational sleights of hand, please.
- paulcole 3y agoYes, I asked a question. You gave your opinion. I said I disagreed with it. You said disagree with what? I said I disagree with your opinion. Repeat… several times now lol.
- cxr 3y agoHere's what you're not getting: nobody asked about that. You cannot say to someone who doesn't like hot dogs, e.g., "What makes hot dogs gross?" and then when someone explains why, respond, "I disagree." That makes no sense. You asked for the information, they gave it to you, so the only possible way that "I disagree" fits at that place in the conversation is if you're saying that you disagree that that's their reason. To respond "I disagree" in the sense that you don't share their taste is to fundamentally change the subject to try to have a different conversation. And it's not interesting, besides. People have different tastes. That's expected. Stating that you personally think it is worth the price—especially in this context, as if it's some kind of retort—is just annoying. It isn't illuminating; that you don't share the same opinion is utterly unsurprising and didn't need saying, and it provides no special insight.