Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
See, we're not really that far apart in our thinking when it boils down to it... except maybe semantically. Because I agree with your above statement. I just don't think "never thought it would take off the way that it has" means the same thing as "couldn't possibly foresee it." Which is what stonetools (by way of Shatzkin) is asking me to believe. They're asking me to believe that the people wanting to sell ebooks saw a market that publishers couldn't possibly see. Nope. Sorry. They simply wrote off ebooks as a non-factor. Which is fine... but guessing wrong doesn't absolve you of anything... it's your industry. You were supposed to be on top of it and guess right. Others did after all.
|
You have to see the ebooks market through the publishers eyes though.
1) The price has to be the same or higher then the most expensive print version or it will erode their market.
2) The ebook has to be the same as a paper book in regards to what is favourable to the publishers otherwise they would have to renegotiate rights to books they already publish. If this means that geographical restrictions remain, too bad.
3) The ebook has to be totalyl different from a paper book in regards to what is favourable to the readers. You can't own a copy. You can't lend a copy to family or friends. You can't resell the copy you purchased. You just temporarily rent the right to read it but you still have to pay the same price.
4) All other benefits of ebooks have to be disabled so that we can charge more for them. Text to speech is only available at extra cost. Translations must be disabled. Printing must be disabled. Cut and paste must be disabled.
When you look at electronic books through those goggles, how could you have predicted they would take off the way they did?