Associated Press Announces Plans for iPad Application

[cmaier]

You do make a good point about DRM and it's restrictions. These restrictions could still face "Fair Use" challenges in court in the future, and I would hope that the publishers would loose if they their DRM goes far enough to restrict fair use provisions of the copyright laws.

Still, there are costs involved in creation and production that limit how low the product can be produced for and still be a profitable business. If the electronic format cannot find a price point that will be profitable and the market will accept then it's success will be limited as a main stream format.

True. But publishers have to understand that people do not make buying decisions based on the cost of producing a product; they decide if the price is right based on the worth of the product to them. If they price e-material the same as or higher than printed matter they need to eliminate DRM so that the resulting product is at least equal in worth to consumers.

Note that if fair use applied to the DMCA that wouldn't eliminate the use of DRM - it would simply prevent legal liability to those who bypass technical measures (and maybe to those who provide software to enable such bypassing, but maybe not) to enable fair use.

It's bad enough that consumers perceive electronic goods as having lower worth due to their incorporeal nature - publishers are actively reducing the value of these goods while (in some cases) charging the same as for physical media.

 

[rhett7660]

True. But publishers have to understand that people do not make buying decisions based on the cost of producing a product; they decide if the price is right based on the worth of the product to them. If they price e-material the same as or higher than printed matter they need to eliminate DRM so that the resulting product is at least equal in worth to consumers.

Note that if fair use applied to the DMCA that wouldn't eliminate the use of DRM - it would simply prevent legal liability to those who bypass technical measures (and maybe to those who provide software to enable such bypassing, but maybe not) to enable fair use.

It's bad enough that consumers perceive electronic goods as having lower worth due to their incorporeal nature - publishers are actively reducing the value of these goods while (in some cases) charging the same as for physical media.

Why wouldn't most consumers perceive the digital media as of a lesser value. Hell they pay for a music file that does not sound as good at the real deal of a cd yet pay the same price. No keep in mind I am not saying they have to or there is a gun to there head forcing them to purchase. However having the convenience of such a product and having that product cheaper sounding/looking etc. Plus, you don't have to do the shipping, you don't have to do the printing, you don't have to etc..... so yes I can see where it would seem these products are cheaper.

 

[cmaier]

Why wouldn't most consumers perceive the digital media as of a lesser value. Hell they pay for a music file that does not sound as good at the real deal of a cd yet pay the same price. No keep in mind I am not saying they have to or there is a gun to there head forcing them to purchase. However having the convenience of such a product and having that product cheaper sounding/looking etc. Plus, you don't have to do the shipping, you don't have to do the printing, you don't have to etc..... so yes I can see where it would seem these products are cheaper.

The point is you are conflating the cost of production and the value to the consumer. These are two different issues. Consumers, in the end, care about the value of the thing to them, not how much it cost to produce (printing, etc.)

We weren't necessarily talking about music, and not all music is lossy-encoded, but it's a fair point. But even 256-encoded music has advantages over physical media - it's more convenient to carry around, easier to back-up or copy, etc. If it has DRM, the restrictions either eliminate or severely reduce these advantages.

My point is simply that if the consumer doesn't get as much utility per dollar from e-media as he does from physical media (taking into account quality, features, DRM, convenience, etc.) then he won't buy it.

And I agree with the other poster who says it is wrong to focus on cost of reproduction, distribution, etc. in looking at the price. They could produce ebooks for free by rubbing a magic lamp, but people would still be willing to pay for them if they contained the content they wanted without the inconvenience of DRM.

 

[jerome65]

Why wouldn't most consumers perceive the digital media as of a lesser value. Hell they pay for a music file that does not sound as good at the real deal of a cd yet pay the same price. No keep in mind I am not saying they have to or there is a gun to there head forcing them to purchase. However having the convenience of such a product and having that product cheaper sounding/looking etc. Plus, you don't have to do the shipping, you don't have to do the printing, you don't have to etc..... so yes I can see where it would seem these products are cheaper.

Yes but how much does the shipping really cost? We ship logs over to China to be made into plywood and ship the plywood back to the U.S. and it still costs considerably less than the same product made here.

As for printing costs, publishers have already cut a considerable of the cost out of that by outsourcing it to China or Mexico to keep prices from rising over the past decade, or in some cases brought the price of the printed product down.

Sure they will still save money with electronic delivery, but it probably isn't as much as most people expect. There are also additional costs that they would have to incur like adding in accessibility and user interaction, even if that user interaction is nothing more than internal hyperlinking of the table of content and index. If they add in more rich media like animation, video, or linking to an online content then the cost could end up being the same or even more than the cost of producing a printed book.

 

[AidenShaw]

My point is simply that if the consumer doesn't get as much utility per dollar from e-media as he does from physical media (taking into account quality, features, DRM, convenience, etc.) then he won't buy it.

Exactly why my Blu-ray collection is expanding, and I have zero
bytes of movie downloads in the collection.

"Quality" and "features" are #1 and #2 - and the current downloads
rape the quality and strip the features.

Convenience won't make me watch low definition, poor sounding stuff. (And
even "convenience" is debatable, until I have that
gigabit fibre to my home.)

 

[cmaier]

Exactly why my Blu-ray collection is expanding, and I have zero
bytes of movie downloads in the collection.

"Quality" and "features" are #1 and #2 - and the current downloads
rape the quality and strip the features.

Convenience won't make me watch low definition, poor sounding stuff. (And
even "convenience" is debatable, until I have that
gigabit fibre to my home.)

Me too. 800 DVDs and 200 Blu-rays - streaming media to a 92" projection TV ain't gonna cut it.

 

[jerome65]

Yes, but with eBooks, eNewspapers, and eMagazines you will probably be getting more value and feature from the electronic format than the printed format as long as the DRM is not too restrictive. It is more like the move from Vinyl to CD or VHS to DVD than it is from CD/DVD to .mp3/mp4/wmv.

 

[cmaier]

Yes, but with eBooks, eNewspapers, and eMagazines you will probably be getting more value and feature from the electronic format than the printed format as long as the DRM is not too restrictive. It is more like the move from Vinyl to CD or VHS to DVD than it is from CD/DVD to .mp3/mp4/wmv.

I haven't seen any added value from eBooks so far (aside from the ability to impulse download them). We'll see what happens with newspapers and magazines, but this is not an industry that, in general, has shown that it understands what the web has done to its business model and that it has a plan to compete.

 

[rhett7660]

The point is you are conflating the cost of production and the value to the consumer. These are two different issues. Consumers, in the end, care about the value of the thing to them, not how much it cost to produce (printing, etc.)

This is true, however some consumers also put the price and value based on how much something costs. Doesn't matter if it is made in location xyz, if the price is low some will equate that to a not so good product. So the perceived value to the end user can be low.

We weren't necessarily talking about music, and not all music is lossy-encoded, but it's a fair point. But even 256-encoded music has advantages over physical media - it's more convenient to carry around, easier to back-up or copy, etc. If it has DRM, the restrictions either eliminate or severely reduce these advantages.

My point is simply that if the consumer doesn't get as much utility per dollar from e-media as he does from physical media (taking into account quality, features, DRM, convenience, etc.) then he won't buy it.

And I agree with the other poster who says it is wrong to focus on cost of reproduction, distribution, etc. in looking at the price. They could produce ebooks for free by rubbing a magic lamp, but people would still be willing to pay for them if they contained the content they wanted without the inconvenience of DRM.

Yes but how much does the shipping really cost? We ship logs over to China to be made into plywood and ship the plywood back to the U.S. and it still costs considerably less than the same product made here.

This is true, but we both know there are deals in place that allow this to happen at a price point that would not normally be giving to the average customer etc.

As for printing costs, publishers have already cut a considerable of the cost out of that by outsourcing it to China or Mexico to keep prices from rising over the past decade, or in some cases brought the price of the printed product down.

But there is still a price for printing. The fee has not gone away. There is still a price. So unless you are getting that price knocked off completely this will be passed to the consumer. Won't it not?

Sure they will still save money with electronic delivery, but it probably isn't as much as most people expect. There are also additional costs that they would have to incur like adding in accessibility and user interaction, even if that user interaction is nothing more than internal hyperlinking of the table of content and index. If they add in more rich media like animation, video, or linking to an online content then the cost could end up being the same or even more than the cost of producing a printed book.

I agree. I am really interested on the savings of having your medial online stored on a server as opposed to having it printed and then shipped out to the end user. With newspapers, magazines etc. I am curious if anybody has any numbers for this.

See bold responses.

 

[jerome65]

This is true, but we both know there are deals in place that allow this to happen at a price point that would not normally be giving to the average customer etc.

I'm not sure I get your point, or maybe you don't get mine. I'm talking about shipping from the printer to the warehouse and then to the retail chain. This is built into the cost of the product so is passed on to the consumer.

But there is still a price for printing. The fee has not gone away. There is still a price. So unless you are getting that price knocked off completely this will be passed to the consumer. Won't it not?

Yes there is still printing cost, and it has come down considerably in the last 10-15 years. At the same time publishers have been having a harder time meeting their profit margins as prices for their products has stayed the same or in some cases gone down, bucking the trend of inflation. Case in point 10 years ago it cost $26.99 for a first release hard back novel on my book shelf. Looking at Amazon that is still a typical "suggested" price for a lot of new release hard bound books, however Amazon has discounts for a lot of their new release in the 40-50% range. In fact if memory serves me correctly the price of hard bound books has not changed much since the mid 80's, while the price of paperback books has gone up in the neighborhood of $2-3. At the same time in the 80's I could buy a whole chick at $0.39/lb instead of $1-$1.39/lb today.

I agree. I am really interested on the savings of having your medial online stored on a server as opposed to having it printed and then shipped out to the end user. With newspapers, magazines etc. I am curious if anybody has any numbers for this.

I'm not sure how current it is but I have heard printing cost for the textbook market are about 30% of the cost of the book, I can't recall if that figure was printing alone or printing and distribution. Still there are hidden costs to the electronic format that will add to production costs.

 

[Kevin Winsness]

Tidal Wave!!!

Oh boy!!! Imagine a year from now what will be out there!!

 

[cmaier]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/business/media/01ebooks.html?ref=technology

 

[rhett7660]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/business/media/01ebooks.html?ref=technology

Interesting article. But it still makes me wonder if these numbers are correct. Hell even one of the authors questions the numbers. Interesting read none the less. Gives us a picture, don't know if it is a better one, but still a picture about the industry and how they do the pricing.

 

[rhett7660]

I'm not sure I get your point, or maybe you don't get mine. I'm talking about shipping from the printer to the warehouse and then to the retail chain. This is built into the cost of the product so is passed on to the consumer.

Yes there is still printing cost, and it has come down considerably in the last 10-15 years. At the same time publishers have been having a harder time meeting their profit margins as prices for their products has stayed the same or in some cases gone down, bucking the trend of inflation. Case in point 10 years ago it cost $26.99 for a first release hard back novel on my book shelf. Looking at Amazon that is still a typical "suggested" price for a lot of new release hard bound books, however Amazon has discounts for a lot of their new release in the 40-50% range. In fact if memory serves me correctly the price of hard bound books has not changed much since the mid 80's, while the price of paperback books has gone up in the neighborhood of $2-3. At the same time in the 80's I could buy a whole chick at $0.39/lb instead of $1-$1.39/lb today.

I'm not sure how current it is but I have heard printing cost for the textbook market are about 30% of the cost of the book, I can't recall if that figure was printing alone or printing and distribution. Still there are hidden costs to the electronic format that will add to production costs.

I was referring to the china wood cutting etc.......

 

[Thex1138]

So yeah, sign up for web news from whatever outlet and get full page splash ads that chew up bandwidth and download megabytes that I paid for…
please Steve, don't let the megabyte hungry spalsh ads invade my news reading… chewing up bandwidth, my subscription money and my 3G providor dollars!

 

[rhett7660]

So yeah, sign up for web news from whatever outlet and get full page splash ads that chew up bandwidth and download megabytes that I paid for…
please Steve, don't let the megabyte hungry spalsh ads invade my news reading… chewing up bandwidth, my subscription money and my 3G providor dollars!

Amen to that!

 

[Smallville]

Again, if people won't pay for content, then one day there will be no content.

The people who produce all these stories you read on a free aggregate sites have to earn a wage somewhere. News costs money. If people won't part with a little bit of money for it, news will dry up when the corporations fall apart. Then where will your news come from? Basement bloggers who are more inclined to rant about news they read somewhere else that was produced by a full-time reporter who needs to make a living?

While I believe it will take time to find the best way to deliver digital news, the most difficult battle is convincing freeloaders to pay for what they consume.

 

[Thex1138]

Do You Get Me? We Get You Sir!

Again, if people won't pay for content, then one day there will be no content.

The people who produce all these stories you read on a free aggregate sites have to earn a wage somewhere. News costs money. If people won't part with a little bit of money for it, news will dry up when the corporations fall apart. Then where will your news come from? Basement bloggers who are more inclined to rant about news they read somewhere else that was produced by a full-time reporter who needs to make a living?

While I believe it will take time to find the best way to deliver digital news, the most difficult battle is convincing freeloaders to pay for what they consume.

No that is not right!
These frakking newspaper, especially Faux and any Murdoch media currently churn out relative garbage...
Look what happens on any news media page, unwanted splash pages chewing up paid bandwidth that no one asked for.
They will no doubt chew my 3G megabytes, my paid content and my whole screen for some trashy useless tripe that no one wants except pyramid marketers... I do not pay for frakkin ads, I pay for NEWS CONTENT!

Why on earth do ad-blockers in Firefox and Google Browsers make such a great trade blocking, from what I have read, at least 30% of ads. I even get to contribute to the black list database of ad links! It's wonderful!

Steve if you really value us as iPad buyers, do not let scabby flash ads perforate the wonderful experience
You yourself say it! Flash Chews up bandwidth, CPU and Battery, now it will chew up subscription value.... If that's the outcome then No One will renew contracts! And I will certainly never subscribe to any of them until I have experienced news consumption on SOMEONE ELSE'S device and contract UNTIL I see that they are getting value for money from Murdoch Vultures!
Frakk!

 

[mygoldens]

Why?

I cannot see all these yahoos jumping on the band wagon, for what?

A 2lb piece of glass with no way to carry?!?!

The iPhone is bad enough, no keyboard and no multi-tasking and low resolution, etc, etc...

But the iPad!!?!?!?!

Apple CREATE SOMETHING USEFUL!!! GET OFF THE MONEY TRAIN!!!!

 

[cmaier]

I cannot see all these yahoos jumping on the band wagon, for what?

A 2lb piece of glass with no way to carry?!?!

The iPhone is bad enough, no keyboard and no multi-tasking and low resolution, etc, etc...

But the iPad!!?!?!?!

Apple CREATE SOMETHING USEFUL!!! GET OFF THE MONEY TRAIN!!!!

Yeah Apple! Quit trying to make money!

LOL.