Ebooks: Scarcity, abundance and economy

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Until relatively recently I used to follow a screenwriters newsgroup and my impression is that there's anything but a scarcity of wannabe script writers. What there is is still gatekeepers.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's an industry that puts out about 600 products a year and three-quarters are low-budget Indie productions.
Compared to even traditional publshing that puts out on the order of 40,000 titles a year in the US and the UK each.

You probably have better odds of winning a lottery than getting a script filmed and distributed. Unless you do it yourself.

That was kind of my point.

It's all about who the buyer is - the buyer for a book is the reader. So there's no scarcity for the book-buyer. The buyer for a script is a production company, the movie viewer is the buyer of the movie itself. So whilst there's a scarcity of movies (only ~600) there's an abundance of scripts (or script-writing services technically since even though spec scripts occasionally get made they'll almost certainly be more drafts before it gets shot).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Micropayment could work *if it were actually possible.* But online, there's no "throw a nickel or a quarter in the hat" option.

I know there isn't a viable micropayment system available (or, if there is, I've never heard of it). I was just asking if it could work to increase sales, if it were available as an option.

Micropayments are one possibility for an abundance economy. Another is sponsorship or ad-based subsidization (the television model of financing), which I think has promise.

[Lazybones]

As an author, the new abundance has been great. Under the old publisher-controlled system I sold zero books and made zero royalties; the high barriers to admittance into the system kept me out. Now I sell eBooks, not enough to make a living, but enough to add an extra layer of reward to my hobby. All of my books are <$3 and several are free.

I would agree with the idea that abundance would eventually lead to reductions in content, if I believed that most authors write with an intention to have it be their sole career. I don't think that's ever been true save for a small minority. The trend could undermine some "big names" but I think there's more than enough amateurs to make up the slack.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

So I suspect an ebook system making everyone pay--but with micropayments that few would oppose because of their low impact on the wallet--would be more effective than essentially hoping for what amounts to donations from a few patrons.

I can't see how you can force everyone to pay if they don't want to. You'd be more likely to get a Youtube type deal where you get a share of the advertising revenue based on number of unique "hits" you generate. With "viewers" getting everything for free in return for their statistical and other data.

I think there's something like that in Japan, or the closest here would be Amazon's library where you get some small amount each time your title is borrowed. Either way, "free" to consumers is the way it's going. If Amazon didn't have a minimum price for ebooks we would already be there.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That doesn't mean one couldn't support the other: Perhaps the ebook will be the free giveaway to entice people to go see the movie. No, they're not the same, but one can add value to the other.

Can't really see that working. Books are a lot more of a minority interest than films and the book versions usually only tend to sell to people who have already seen the film. Even then, these days they would be more likely to just buy the home version of the film.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The cost per watt in 1974 was $1,000 watt. today it's around $1 in quantity. No one big drop, just steady price erosion. Following that curve has the price per watt in 10 years at 25-50 cents a watt. Generated power runs a watt equivalent of $.75 to $1 a watt.

Hang on.
You can't assume that the cost per watt for self-generated power continuously drops, but that the cost per watt for centrally-generated power will remain the same, that just doesn't make any sense.

[QuantumIguana]

I don't really see a lot of difference, Brad Pitt and J.K. Rowling will both attract a lot of attention, and get a lot of interview requests. Bit actors aren't likely to get many interviews.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I should say that this is an attitude I read in the United States in general, it is my subjective impression (I may just hang out in the wrong places), and I don't assume that other countries are like this.

What you detect is generally real and it is just another expression of the anti-intellectualism and luddism that is a major part of US culture. (And other countries, though it expresses differently in some.)

Writers are not the only unappreciated professionals out there; our society celebrates poiticians, athletes, actors, and plastic airheads but deprecates farmers, teachers, scientists, engineers, and technicians--the people most responsible for maintaining our standard of living. Pre 9/11 firemen and police offers were routinely ignored and villified and even afterwards a lot of the "respect" accorded them and the military is more lip service than heartfelt recognition of their sacrifices for the common good.

Back in my day job the consensus has long been that nobody goes into engineering if they want to get rich or famous. Or even be respected.

Still, it woudn't hurt to get *some* respect, no?

[whitearrow]

For me, the decision to buy now, wait, look for the book at the library or pass on it altogether isn't a simple one... it's not like buying one brand of milk in the supermarket over another.

I think I can simplify it by saying the lower the price point, the more willing I am to take a risk. For a "free" book, if it's a genre I read, and the cover and description aren't ridiculous, chances are I'm clicking that "buy" button. At $2.99, I'm almost just as willing, but maybe I will check out a few reviews first. At $4.99, it needs more than a few good reviews, at least a plurality of 3 stars and up, or something else, like a professional review from a reviewer I trust. I may check if it's at the library first (in ebook form).

Once you hit $7.99, I'm much less willing to take a chance. That's the price where I will buy authors I know, maybe in those series where I was waiting for the ebook to drop to the paperback price. Or a new series (at least for me) by an author I already like. Or something new to me that's been personally recommended by someone I know and trust. But probably, I'll check and see if I can get these from the library first, even if I need to wait awhile.

At $9.99 and above, that's purely territory for "I can't wait to read this" books, for the new George RR Martin or similarly awaited titles. There are just a few books a year that fit this category.

tl;dr -- the lower the price point, the more willing I am to take a chance on something new to me.

[nate3]

This concept intrigues me. I, for one, am an "on-the-fence" kind of guy when it comes to completely falling in love with the eReader tech. For reasons that have been much better articulated, and probably almost over used, I am still in the printed book camp. With that said, I'm not opposed at all to the emergence of the Tech, but there are some concerns (again that have been well documented by smarter people than myself).

I did run across this article regarding the bargain book bin for print books, and raising the question of whether or not eBooks could provide the same life for out of print or little known books. I'd love to hear what you think about it, as I found it to be an interesting insight.

http://www.north.com/latest/a-trip-t...g-thinking-ux/

[Barty]

Talent is still scarce. The authors that I love aren't really interchangeable or replaceable.

It's why I can ever get on any "boycott [insert publisher here]" train. What if they publish someone I really like?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Hang on.
You can't assume that the cost per watt for self-generated power continuously drops, but that the cost per watt for centrally-generated power will remain the same, that just doesn't make any sense.

Why not? The cost of centrally-generated power is fuel based, Solar is strictly capital based. Once you buy the installation, the running costs are near 0. Can't say that about coal, oil, or natural gas...(Or the decommisioning cost of a nuke plant.)

[Penforhire]

Ralph, I think I'm paying around $0.19 per kW-hour and my regional power cost is high (So Cal). $0.25 in ten years doesn't sound like a bargain. I like the idea of a decentralized grid but the lowest-cost clean solution, without government sponsorship, should win.

In ten years you may be right, that solar or whatever alternative source will be cheap enough. The solar energy storage cost (cracking water in your example) still has to be paid for. I think it is more likely that natural gas generators proliferate, even though I'd prefer to see nuclear investment. The Bloom Energy fuel cell has an outrageous efficiency (and can run on more than natural gas), natural gas reserves continue to grow, and that fuel cell achieves a similar decentralized effect as solar.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Ralph, I think I'm paying around $0.19 per kW-hour and my regional power cost is high (So Cal). $0.25 in ten years doesn't sound like a bargain. I like the idea of a decentralized grid but the lowest-cost clean solution, without government sponsorship, should win.

In ten years you may be right, that solar or whatever alternative source will be cheap enough. The solar energy storage cost (cracking water in your example) still has to be paid for. I think it is more likely that natural gas generators proliferate, even though I'd prefer to see nuclear investment. The Bloom Energy fuel cell has an outrageous efficiency (and can run on more than natural gas), natural gas reserves continue to grow, and that fuel cell achieves a similar decentralized effect as solar.

Choose your cord -electric line or nat gas line. Same thing...

There's a big difference between Watt cost and KW-Hour cost. The Watt cost is amortized over the effective lifespan of the panel (say 10-20 years), plus the average number of hours a day. In DFW that's 5 hours a day (average). So - $2 a watt x 1000 watts = $2000 kilowatt. $2000KW /5 hours a day = $400 a kilowatt/hour. $400KW / 365 days = just over $1 a KW. divide by 10 = $.10 a Kilowatt hour equivalent.

But in reality, you'll need to multiply by 3 to account for installation costs as well as an inverter to change the DC to AC for use (no jokes, please). So call it around $.30 a KW hour. Your centrally generated power is still cheaper, so nobody does it.

Change $2 to $.50 and you may get to $.07 to $.10 a KW/hour. That becomes real competitive...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Why not? The cost of centrally-generated power is fuel based, Solar is strictly capital based. Once you buy the installation, the running costs are near 0. Can't say that about coal, oil, or natural gas...(Or the decommisioning cost of a nuke plant.)

And if solar power becomes that economical, why wouldn't you have large centrally-generated solar installations? And it seems very likely that one large solar array would be more efficient than 100 little domestic sized ones.