The Rotten Apple of Publishing
Published May 18th, 2012 | 
I’ll be the first to admit when I am wrong. While I’ve long been a vocal critic of Apple’s “agency model” ebook pricing scheme, I never actually believed there was any collusion between Apple and the major publishing firms. But then, all these lawsuits happened, and what we are learning is that not only was there collusion, but Steve Jobs, himself, strong-armed reluctant publishers into the deal that gave Apple “most favored nation” status and fixed prices. Jobs basically sold publisher on the idea that Apple’s way was the only viable option for them.
According to Jobs, the agency model would level the playing field for publishers,end Amazon’s monopoly on the e-book market, foster competition and reduce digital piracy. Let’s see … how did that work out?
Did it reduce piracy? Nope. In fact, since the iBookstore was released for the iPad using the agency model, e-book piracy has spiked.
Did the agency model end Amazon’s monopoly? Not really. Sure, Amazon lost some of their market share to other players, but that would’ve happened anyway due to the simple fact that there emerged other players. Amazon still basically owns the ebook market as of this writing with somewhere between 65 and 70 percent of the market share.
Did the agency model foster competition? Again, not really. Other players emerged, but the agency model forced everyone to follow Apple’s rules. Those rules benefited publishers in the sense that they were able to earn a profits on many books, but it hurt consumers in the sense that they were paying more for those e books (in many cases, more than the hard copy).
What bugs me is that the publishers woes were self-inflicted. They never bothered to look for another option. They were susceptible to Apple’s machinations because they were looking for a shortcut. Dumb. Really dumb.
* This post is sponsored by car title loans philadelphia.
Reading With Cheap Eyeglasses
Published January 8th, 2012 | I was blog post by new media phobic writer, Nicolas Carr, a guy who though he himself uses new media as a platform for his writing is nonetheless critical of everything digital. His latest target is e-books.
More specifically, he ponders whether being able to edit on-the-fly is a good things since a book is never really complete if you can constantly revise it quickly and painlessly. According to Carr:
What will be lost, or at least diminished, is the sense of a book as a finished and complete object, a self-contained work of art…
Well, this is a good one. Truly. I had to clean my cheap eyeglasses twice to make sure I was reading that correctly. Think about this: When the anti-eBook crowd initially poo-pooed the e-book, one of the criticisms was that there was no editorial process at all. Now Carr is saying that there will be too much editing. Huh?
Here’s my problem with this argument: Revision is a necessary part of writing. And many writers have published revised versions of printed “literary” books even after publication. Jerzy Kosinski to name just one noted writers, was infamous for doing this. Walt Whitman made it his life’s work to revise and update Leaves of Grass. And what about the many editors and literary scholars who have posthumously revised and updated well-known literary works (how many different editions of Shakespeare, Homer, The Bible are there? And don’t even get me started on what The Powers That Be have done to Twain). The only difference is that it takes longer to do in print. However, for the vast majority of writers, when a book is finished it is finished. Does Carr imagine that the ability to make quick post-publication revisions will cause writers who wouldn’t normally make post-publication revisions to make post-publication revisions? Like it’s an addiction or something?
Further, is Carr suggesting that a writer doesn’t even have the right to change and update his own work if he so chooses? This is nonsense. This whole idea that the physical form of a printed book is all that defines a book as a book is ridiculous. Is a bound collection of blank pages a book? Or is the book the written arrangement of words and ideas? Is The Grapes of Wrath less of a masterpiece in digital form? Because that’s the question we have to answer going forward. Not whether revision changes a piece of writing. Because is does that’s why we call it revision. The definition doesn’t change just because a book goes from print to digital.
*Brought to you by pa electricity
.
The Nook on the Hook
Published January 5th, 2012 | E-readers are perhaps most innovative creation since log furniture and, while e-readers are helping Amazon expand its publishing business, Barnes & Noble is getting out of direct publishing. That’s right, pretty soon, B&N will not be publishing anymore Barnes and Noble Classics or anything else. It seems the the big book retailers is planning to put all its eggs in one basket and support the Nook Reader. Currently, the Nook, which trails the Kindle in sales, is the most successful thing Barnes and Noble has going for it. With more bookstore closings on the horizon and its Sterling Publishing arm losing money, the booksellers is mulling over a decision about a Nook spin-off to protect its one true asset from the fallout of its failing business.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the book business, but I’m thinking this move is a bit premature. Consider that Barnes and Noble is a failing business because the economy has been bad and because the retailers customer service sucks. The economy is improving (slowly, sure, but improving nonetheless). It would be more prudent for the bookseller to address customer service concerns and hire employees who actually know books and literature and pay them a living wage. Because, once the economy improves, Barnes and Noble is in a better position for offer customers services that Amazon cannot because it has no physical stores. Don’t get me wrong, Amazon is great at what it does, but Amazon is already wholly dependent on online and digital sales (they have no alternative). It is unlikely that Barnes and Noble will ever overtake Amazon in the e-book business. The only thing it has that Amazon doesn’t is brick n mortar stores with real human beings working in them. Barnes and Noble can interact directly, face-to-face with customers. It can provide atmosphere. That’s a significant advantage because, while e-book sales will continue to grow, physical books will never disappear completely and there is something to be said about browsing and shopping for books in a real store and being able to ask questions. Amazon’s lame user reviews are no substitute for real human interaction. That’s why I think it’s premature to bet everything on The Nook, a device that despite its modest success, has yet to prove it’s more than just another alternative to the Kindle.
