Quote:
Originally Posted by Frawan
First post... Had to register since people seem to be quite mistaken about this new Google-system. Where did you get the impression that simply because your library is saved online in a cloud, allowing you to access the books from multiple devices, you also have to be connected all the time?
Like one of the comments on the original news-site:
There is really no difference in terms of access to a library online between Amazon now and Google. The difference is that the google library appears to be open format, and open for various readers and mobile devices. I hope this will mean that I can simply download books to my PC, transfer it to my E-reader, or find a new book while in the bus, downloading it on my iphone, and later when I get home, find it for my e-reader, enabling me to read on multiple devices depending on my situation, and only having to look one place to get all the ebooks I have ever purchased.
It clearly states in the article: What is the fuss about. This is great! Finally some good competition to Amazon, enabling everyone to break the geographical restrictions and format restrictions.
|
Actually the business model from Amazon and Google are quite different. You can tell by the terminology used in the article.
The term "cached locally" implies that an encoded format is stored on the local device that can only be access by the reading application.
If it was like Amazon they would have used the term "download" or "stored".
From my reading Google model is more akin to Shortcovers than Amazon. Shortcover also caches books locally one chapter at a time.
Second there is no way you can claim the format is "open". They have not specified how one is going to access the books. Just because they claim many devices can read their books does not make their format open. Heck Amazon had expressed the same desires and we know that MOBI/AMZ is not an open format.
The problem is your reading the article with a "wishful" bent, and I would wish you where correct, but that is not what is being said. If you understand Google's business model and the wording they've chosen it is clear their model is no where near your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnemicOak
Amazon uses a lot of those $9.99 books as loss leaders (in other words they take a loss on them).
|
I've always had a hard time believing this claim for a number of reasons. 1) It's illegal to sell merchandise below cost, esp if your a market leader. There would have been a law suit by now.
2) Publishers are really upset about the price point and claim they are losing profit to eBooks. If Amazon was paying publishers full price then they would not care. I think Amazon is getting a discount and they are not publishing the discount.