HarperCollins is run by a bunch of rude people

[xSauronx]

And of course you can't get a discounted eBook if you buy the physical book. Which I still find to be the most aggravating part of the current digital publishing market.

technical and some educational books are better about it. when i was in school, a lot of the ebooks and the hardcopies were the same price, but if you bought the hardcopy youd get the book for super cheap.

so id buy both and sell the hardcopy.

 

[sdifox]

Op could try the lical library. They lend out digital copies.

 

[destrekor]

The problem is that you're still thinking of an eBook as a physical item. It doesn't require storage, it doesn't require shelf space, it doesn't require shipping. The only reason the wholeseller model existed in the first place was due to those reasons, because at the end of the day the retailer needed to get rid of the book.

But with digital goods retailers are nothing more than middle-men. They don't add any value (even less than the publishers!), the just handle the credit card transactions and provide the DRM services for their respective platform. There's no real reason they should be the ones to set the price; an eBook is just an app by another name. Consequently it is the authors/publishers setting the price.

More practically speaking, Amazon has already run all the other dead tree booksellers out of business. Do you really want to hand them even more power? It's all one long-term scheme to run other retailers out of business then jack up prices just high enough that Amazon makes a tidy profit while no one else can afford the startup costs to compete. There's a reason Amazon doesn't make any money...

I don't wish to see Amazon collect any more power over publishing, however, that is not at all what I am arguing.

I understand the difference between digital goods and physical goods, but just because it is digital, that does not take away the right of the retailer to set prices as they see fit. Look at any other digital prices on Amazon, and for a great example, look at Steam or other digital game storefronts.

I'm not saying it's wrong for HC to set a $17 eBook price, they can do what they want. What I would like to see is retailers actually have an option to set the final retail price, not find themselves locked to whatever a publisher told them to set.

Frankly, I'd like to have seen the publisher's price start lower anyway, the typical $10 eBook price resonates as fair in my mind, just as the typical $20-30 hardcover price is fair. If the retailer wants to eat into their portion of the price, typically around 30% of the publisher's set price is retailer revenue, they should be free to do so.

Amazon does have numerous titles that are kept at $9.99, but there too the prices are set by the publisher and the retailer has no option. HarperCollins is not the only publisher guilty of this tactic, but they seem to have taken it to another step by nearly doubling the common eBook price.

Op could try the lical library. They lend out digital copies.

I did check my library's website and the eBook format for that book has yet to be put up for lending.
That said, I could check out the physical book, however, I would like to support the author with a purchase.

I was set to buy immediately, but I've actually taken a step back anyhow, I want to finish one of the two books I started somewhat recently but haven't finished. Infinite Jest is one hell of a tome that I now see as a personal challenge, and The Road is oddly written and depressing. I haven't set aside enough time for myself to read and I need to fix that.

 

[ControlD]

I wonder how Neal Stephenson feels about all of this? He is generally fairly anti-establishment, at least he was in his early days.

I'll probably end up buying this one anyhow. The only thing keeping me back is that his last book would NOT have been worth that price.

 

[Mike64]

It's all one long-term scheme to run other retailers out of business then jack up prices just high enough that Amazon makes a tidy profit while no one else can afford the startup costs to compete. There's a reason Amazon doesn't make any money...

Amazon went online in 1995. That's one damned long-term "scheme"...

 

[destrekor]

I wonder how Neal Stephenson feels about all of this? He is generally fairly anti-establishment, at least he was in his early days.

I'll probably end up buying this one anyhow. The only thing keeping me back is that his last book would NOT have been worth that price.

Reamde?

I would agree that $17 for that as an eBook would have been a crime, but I did enjoy that book very much.

I almost wouldn't doubt if I could find a way to contact Stephenson and give him $10 or $15 bucks and say, "I pirated your book because I can't stand HarperCollins... so here is the money you are owed good sir," that he'd probably approve and laugh.

I will probably end up getting the hardcover just because.

 

[ralfy]

This might help:

http://gizmodo.com/5482774/how-much-it-actually-costs-to-publish-an-ebook-vs-a-real-book

 

[DaveSimmons]

This might help:

http://gizmodo.com/5482774/how-much-it-actually-costs-to-publish-an-ebook-vs-a-real-book

So any brand-new eBook priced over $12.50 is gouging. Good to know.

The article misses a point though: If a printed book fails to sell, the $3.25 printing & shipping costs for all x,000 copes must still be paid. For an ebook it's just the one-time editing and marketing costs. So the publisher ought to accept less profit given less risk.

 

[norseamd]

Amazon went online in 1995. That's one damned long-term "scheme"...

And I bet Bezos is willing to wait for the possibility of complete control of consumer purchases not only in America but in as many countries as is physically possible.

 

[ViRGE]

Amazon went online in 1995. That's one damned long-term "scheme"...

Amazon started in 1995 as a book company. They've since expanded their reach, but they've long since taken over the book market.

 

[ControlD]

Reamde?

I would agree that $17 for that as an eBook would have been a crime, but I did enjoy that book very much.

Yeah, I like it too but it just wasn't up to the level of what I expect from Stephenson.

 

[Mike64]

Amazon started in 1995 as a book company. They've since expanded their reach, but they've long since taken over the book market.

Yabbut by itself, that's not that much of a "scheme", or at least arguably not a nefarious one. I really haven't noticed them "jacking up [book] prices" to any noticeable degree, have you?

 

[norseamd]

Yabbut by itself, that's not that much of a "scheme", or at least arguably not a nefarious one. I really haven't noticed them "jacking up [book] prices" to any noticeable degree, have you?

Because they still have competitors and do not have a monopoly on the consumer purchasing industry.

 

[leper84]

Do ebook prices drop after time?

If so how is this any different than gaming? EVERYONE sells a new release for the exact same price. Don't hear anyone complaining about that.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm about 150 pages in and don't like it all that much. It's like it wants to be The Martian but just isn't up to the caliber. The only other book of his I've read is Snow Crash and it wasn't that great either, I don't think I'm much of a fan of Neal Stephenson.

 

[ControlD]

I'm about 150 pages in and don't like it all that much. It's like it wants to be The Martian but just isn't up to the caliber. The only other book of his I've read is Snow Crash and it wasn't that great either, I don't think I'm much of a fan of Neal Stephenson.

Give Cryptonomicon a shot if you want to see him at his best. I also really liked the Baroque Cycle series of books. I haven't been as thrilled with his newer stuff.

 

[destrekor]

I'm about 150 pages in and don't like it all that much. It's like it wants to be The Martian but just isn't up to the caliber. The only other book of his I've read is Snow Crash and it wasn't that great either, I don't think I'm much of a fan of Neal Stephenson.

The concept was fun, but I was definitely not a big fan of Snow Crash as a demonstration of writing talent.


Now, Cryptonomicon - if you can't get into that book, then Stephenson is definitely not for you.

Anathem is another very good read from him, but Cryptonomicon is far more approachable. Anathem's focus and slow start can definitely bore some people, Stephenson loves detailing... details... and the subject may not be attention-grabbing at the get-go, but I feel it really gets moving and the overall novel is very enjoyable and wraps up, while rather strangely based on the start, in a fulfilling manner.

Cryptonomicon, if you are interesting in war, cryptography, and digital currency, will quite likely grab you from the start.

Reamde is a fun read, and is a return to the world of digital security, hacking/viruses, and also features a contemporary MMO, but ultimately is mostly a story of a chase/rescue with those elements as plot-movers.

With that in mind, it's a fun contemporary read, but if you are looking for the most cerebral or intelligent novel with award-winning prose, it's not for you.

Frankly, Stephenson probably doesn't fit that frame of reference at all, but I don't want to sell him short, not everyone is destined to be a literary master that is referenced for hundreds of years. I like his contemporary stories, they grab me, and I suspect I should at least enjoy reading Seveneves, but I recognize that Cryptonomicon is an incredibly high bar to clear.

I myself wasn't particularly thrilled with the Baroque Cycle novels, they grabbed me in some ways, mainly because Enoch is such a fantastically compelling character, but I never finished the series because it was just too much messing around with ancient science and not enough compelling plot drivers IMHO.

 

[Mike64]

And I bet Bezos is willing to wait for the possibility of complete control of consumer purchases not only in America but in as many countries as is physically possible.

Wow. I knew this place was rife with conspiracy theorists, but...:awe:

 

[destrekor]

Wow. I knew this place was rife with conspiracy theorists, but...:awe:

Yeah, he's one of the regulars in that department...

That said, Bezos does have a business to run, his original business was focused entirely on the book retail market run on a slim profit margin, then entered the eBook world with massive force and continued the slim margins on both hardware and eBooks.

Any competent massive business has the ultimate goal of market dominance. It is up to the market to provide enough competition to prevent that, or succumb.

 

[Mike64]

Because they still have competitors and do not have a monopoly on the consumer purchasing industry.

Silly me, I thought we were talking about ebooks & physical books.

When it comes to general etailing, the only possible reason Amazon could be developing into a monopoly is because people are stupid and order from them for various silly reasons. In many product categories, I find they often don't have the lowest prices, so there's no particular reason to buy from them. Between their prices, the relatively high minimum for free shipping if you don't have Prime, and their collection of sales tax in a number of states, there's really no point.

 

[Mike64]

Any competent massive business has the ultimate goal of market dominance. It is up to the market to provide enough competition to prevent that, or succumb.

I'm not saying Bezos and Amazon's other investors wouldn't love market dominance. I was just questioning the long-term "plot scheme to grab market share and then jack up prices" theory. (Nor am I saying Amazon wouldn't - at some nebulous time in the unforeseeable future - jack up prices if it did attain "total market dominance," but that's a bit different than a well-planned conspiracy plot "scheme.")

 

[Brainonska511]

Any competent massive business has the ultimate goal of market dominance. It is up to the market to provide enough competition to prevent that, or succumb.

No it isn't. The market can only do so much in an unregulated environment. It can even work against the goal of bringing competitors to market if the barriers to entry are too high. Sometimes, its up to regulators to break up monopolies and monopsonies to keep a healthy and competitive market.

 

[destrekor]

I'm not saying Bezos and Amazon's other investors wouldn't love market dominance. I was just questioning the long-term "plot scheme to grab market share and then jack up prices" theory. (Nor am I saying Amazon wouldn't - at some nebulous time in the unforeseeable future - jack up prices if it did attain "total market dominance," but that's a bit different than a well-planned conspiracy plot "scheme.")

Gotcha. I agree, I don't believe there is some long-term scheme conspiracy, but I would expect a planned growth of market dominance. If they obtain this and raise prices, I would actually be surprised, because it would only be a short time before competitors could capitalize on the opportunity and offer lower prices. Amazon can and will succeed only by maintaining the low profit margin, else, smaller operators can jump right back in to the game.

eBook prices as they are, and what they will become, is not due to Amazon, at least, not directly. Amazon indirectly influenced the current state of affairs by being too good at competition, and publishers and other retailers got into a price fixing game, though they got caught. However, the court settlements and judgments do not appear to be entirely effective, as publishers are still able to create agreements that enforce strict eBook prices. There are a few publishers on Amazon of which Amazon can not alter the listed eBook price, they are set by the publisher.

 

[destrekor]

No it isn't. The market can only do so much in an unregulated environment. It can even work against the goal of bringing competitors to market if the barriers to entry are too high. Sometimes, its up to regulators to break up monopolies and monopsonies to keep a healthy and competitive market.

To be fair, I was mostly thinking of a point before hard monopolies came into play, where the market is still fluid enough to compete.

But yes I would agree, I am not a believer in a fully free market, regulatory bodies must exercise power from time to time to maintain a competitive market. I don't see Amazon anywhere near that point, IMHO, but I guess in a imaginary future scenario they could reach it and regulations would become necessary.

 

[norseamd]

Seems investors want a more "competitive monopoly industry" and they might turn to Alibaba.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-24/alibaba-threatens-amazons-vital-monopoly-investors