Quote:
Originally Posted by crossi
I take it you don't usually comparison shop while considering buying something? I do a lot of comparing of features and prices of similar items before deciding wether something is a good buy or not.
|
Sure I do. But comparison pricing is only relevant if I might actually
buy the other item in question. And even in
that case, my comparison has absolutely zilch to do with the costs to produce and/or market said item (or how much profit someone might make on said item). I care very little about anything other than it's value to
me. I have no fricking clue what it costs to produce a loaf of bread, but I know it's worth it to me to buy it already sliced--even though they might charge me a lot more to slice it than it actually costs them to do so.
I
get having a price-limit you're willing to spend on something. I really do. But what I don't get is an arbitrary, per book, eternally-moving target based on the price of something you'd prefer NOT to buy had they cost the same. I mean; say one of your favorite authors of all time had a book you were
dying to read. The print version is on sale for $6 (but you have to order it, pay shipping and handling, and wait for it to be delivered) and the electronic version of the same book was available immediately for $7. You're really gonna buy the print version (or pass on the book altogether) based solely on the "
no more than the print version" principle? Really? Seems a little silly. Especially when the same rule, would encourage you to pay $8-10 for the same ebook if the print version went to $15 when the sale was over. It's baffling.