Amazon adds Newsweek

[Halk]

Something else...

We're perhaps all victims of our own buying habits.

We all seem to think we want to pay for an item, and then get the use of it without paying more. Instead our buying habits dictate something else.

We want it now, we want it cheaper, and companies end up providing that and making up the difference elsewhere.

It's a well known "fact" (or at least it's highly believed to be a fact) that games consoles are heavily subsidised by the games that run on them.

People won't pay 600 quid for an Xbox and then a tenner a game (saying you want to doesn't make it true). Instead we'll pay 300 quid and 50 quid a game.

Amazon won't market the Kindle at the actual cost to them - i.e. development, production, advertising, network etc. They'll instead discount it and recoup the money in other ways.

The mobile phone market works that way too. We all take contracts and "free phones", instead we're just paying the phone on finance with a much higher line rental.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

So Amazon is charging you for saving you from the effort of clicking a button and connecting your reader to the computer, once a week. Like I said the Amazon Swindle.

I don't see any "swindle" involved. Some people are simply willing to pay for the convenience. Not my cup of tea, personally.

[TheJohnNewton]

While I don't actually read Newsweek online on the Kindle (I actually get the paper version, gasp!) I do read The New York Times online on the Kindle. The browser is fine for text. The navigation at the New York Times site works pretty well on the Kindle browser. I don't know if it renders "correctly" but it's perfectly useable.

Yes I would bet they eventually charge for web access too. We'll see. I'm fine with being charged for a service that I find usefull. If I don't find it usefull I have the option not to use it.

You're wanting Amazon to offer some kind of software to run on your compter that would aggregate and format news in a Kindle friendly format? I think Mobi has some software (mobireader?) that does something like that but I've not tired it. (Kindle can use non-drm mobi format btw.) I'm pretty sure I saw somebody post that they were doing just this.

Isn't it really Newsweek that is selling the Kindle version? It's not like Amazon steals their free content from their free website, formats it in a Kindle version, and offers it for sale. If they did that would literally be a crime. Amazon is just a store facilitating the sale. Newsweek could sell other electronic version if they wanted (I have no idea if they do or not) or decide not to offer it through Amazon. The point is it's Newsweeks content and call on where and how to sell it or give it for free not Amazons.

Other than it's a cutsey rhyme I'm still not getting why the Kindle is a Swindle. You don't have to buy a single piece of content from Amazon if you don't want to. 90% of the content on mine is from other sources. I don't see how offering the choice of a subscription to those who wish to pay for it is a swindle? It's just a choice.

I feel no better calling the Sony Baloney. I think using either name is rather silly. They are just ereaders. If you like either one and it does things you need at a price that is fair to you then buy it. Otherwise don't. Where is the swindle (or baloney) in that?

[bwit]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

It's reasonable to charge for a paper edition, since it costs a significant amount to produce/distribute one. It is not reasonable to sell someone else's freely available online content.

OK, I'm confused. is it your contention that Amazon is ripping this content from the Newsweek site, selling it, and pocketing all the money? Does that seem to you to be something a big company like the Washington Post would tolerate?

Also, if that were the business model why would Amazon only have 9 magazines available. There are tons of magazines on the web and Amazon could rip content from all of them and sell it. Of course they might have to charge a little more to cover all the lawyers they'd need.

I'm sorry, your rants on this subject come across as sour grapes. You're happy with your Sony. You're happy with your free content. Amazon is not ripping you off for content. Relax, enjoy yourself, and leave us suckers alone!

Bob

[TheJohnNewton]

Wow you guys post fast. So many posts while I was typing in mine. Maybe I'm just a slow typist, lol.

Halk, I'm all for subscriptions vs. buying. To me the reason to buy a paper book is because there is value in physically having it. In other words it takes time and money to actaully access a physical copy. So owning it and having it physically in your home has value. With electronic copies this is no longer the case (or the cost is so low it might as well be 0). I'd be all for subscribing to Amazon and just reading whatever book, magazine, or newspaper I want as long as I keep up my subscription. I really have no desire to own any of it. I do this for music, television, movies, and even for technical books already. To me I see no reason for anyone other than the creator to actually own content. I only want to pay to access content.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

I don't see any "swindle" involved. Some people are simply willing to pay for the convenience. Not my cup of tea, personally.

If there's an implication that you're paying for content that is not otherwise available free then there's a hint of a swindle going on there. As with the Sony classics. As far as I understand Sony were putting a value on stuff that is freely available. I think the intention may be to have people believe they are paying for the content, rather than paying for the packaging and delivery.

I can see both sides. Calling it a swindle is a little strong though.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by TheJohnNewton

Wow you guys post fast. So many posts while I was typing in mine. Maybe I'm just a slow typist, lol.

Halk, I'm all for subscriptions vs. buying. To me the reason to buy a paper book is because there is value in physically having it. In other words it takes time and money to actaully access a physical copy. So owning it and having it physically in your home has value. With electronic copies this is no longer the case (or the cost is so low it might as well be 0). I'd be all for subscribing to Amazon and just reading whatever book, magazine, or newspaper I want as long as I keep up my subscription. I really have no desire to own any of it. I do this for music, television, movies, and even for technical books already. To me I see no reason for anyone other than the creator to actually own content. I only want to pay to access content.

I hadn't actually mentioned subscribing to books, I was meaning subscribing to newspapers/magazines. Subscribing to unlimited books would be really nice though, but I think a very difficult business model to get working.

[TheJohnNewton]

Halk, I know of two companies that offer book subscriptions Books 24x7 (I get access through my work place) and O'Reilly Books Online. I used to subscribe to O'Reilly before I got free access to 24x7 through my employer. They have both been around for years so I assume they have figured out the business model. They are both very limited in what you can download though. That is fine for the technical books I use from those sites but I would want to be able to download into a reader for the books I would want from Amazon.

You can pay different fees to be able to acces different numbers of books. I actually have unlimted acces to 24x7 but when I had O'Reily I could access X (I forget the exact number) number per month. They offered different levels of access for different fees.

[Halk]

Yes, that's no real surprise to me. What I meant was a business model that included as many books as you'd find in your local Waterstones. That kind of business model would be, well, let's say difficult

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by bwit

OK, I'm confused. is it your contention that Amazon is ripping this content from the Newsweek site, selling it, and pocketing all the money? Does that seem to you to be something a big company like the Washington Post would tolerate?

Also, if that were the business model why would Amazon only have 9 magazines available. There are tons of magazines on the web and Amazon could rip content from all of them and sell it. Of course they might have to charge a little more to cover all the lawyers they'd need.

I'm sorry, your rants on this subject come across as sour grapes. You're happy with your Sony. You're happy with your free content. Amazon is not ripping you off for content. Relax, enjoy yourself, and leave us suckers alone!

Bob

The Washington Post has decided to adopt a business model for Newsweek where they make content available for free to their readers and make their money on adverts. They want more people to read Newsweek, for free so they can sell their ads at higher prices. If Amazon had instead offered the magazine in ebook form, with ads embedded, they would have been serving both their customers and Newsweek.

And if you dislike reading my "rants" on the subject, ignore them, or better, put me on your ignore list.

[Alisa]

I would love to have both and ad-supported and ad-free option.

[kevinpars]

When I debated the merits of the various ebook readers, I considered the fact that Amazon charges for blogs as well as for magazines that can be found for free online (The Atlantic Monthly is another example of a magazine that is free online).

What I decided was that when I get my ebook reader (in my case a Kindle) my life suddenly wasn't going to change. I would still work the same hours, still have access to a laptop at home. Since I went online the need for a magazine that contains concentrated news like Time/Newsweek has gone away for me, so I am not suddenly going to go back to reading one of them. And since I am online at work all day, I can check blogs the way i do today.

So it came down to books. Amazon has more available than Sony and the price seemed overall to be lower. And I liked the extras that came with the Kindle. But I don't think you can go wrong either way.

As for being 'ripped off,' that is a matter of opinion. A lot of what you are paying for is convenience. For example, I went ahead and bought the Silk Pagoda DVD with 10,000 books on it for $9.99 because I decided that was a whole lot easier than downloading them myself one at a time. On the other hand, the ten cent charge for getting documents converted by Amazon and sent directly to my Kindle is a non issue to me because I have no problem hooking up the USB cable and getting the free version and moving them to the Kindle myself.

[Alisa]

Kevinpars, my usage habits are much like yours so I don't subscribe to blogs and periodicals. I'd rather read them online with all the comments, links and pictures. I also rarely email stuff to my Kindle. It's only when I'm really pressed for time or out and about. I think the value for these conveniences is higher for folks that are very mobile with their work. If I were constantly traveling I might find it quite worthwhile to have all these things automatically sent to me. The cost is pretty low, after all. It's just not worth it to me when since my routine lets me "pay" for more complete, better formatted content by renting a small amount of attention to the advertisers. After all, nothing is free.

[Donnageddon]

I am going to take this opportunity to thank kovidgoyal for his tremendous work on Libprs500. What a fantastic tool! And I get Newsweek for free.

Thanks, kovidgoyal!

This post is in no way intended to slight Kindle, or its owners. There are many aspects of the Kindle I admire, and desire. Maybe I'll get Kindle 2.0

[TallMomof2]

Maybe I'm spoiled but I like how Amazon repackages the blogs for delivery. It's far superior to MobiPocket's feeds. To me that's worth a little cash because I have no idea how to write a program/script that would duplicate the Amazon formatting.