Google to sell ebooks (NYT)

[IgnareAcademy]

Originally Posted by ProfJulie

Give me a break! We're talking about Google not the presidential race! Nonetheless please let me inform you that no democrats came to my door espousing any kind of dogma, but it was the republicans who plagued me with phone calls to the point of my turning off my phone's ringer and letting everything go to voicemail in the final weeks of the campaign.

Google is building the hugest database ever, far larger than those of the KGB, Stasi,...
Databases are not used by the Democrats/Republicans/advertisers to force feed people any kind of dogma, they are used to tell you what you want to hear and link that to a candidate/product.
They are used to manipulate you.
Most people refuse to face the fact that they are manipulated, and to investigate how, and how deeply. It starts during childhood in front of TV, which programs the unconscious. But you have to read books about that to understand the depth of the manipulations going on. Books about PR, advertising, manipulation, psychoanalysis,...Unfortunately, people usually read books that do not set them free, that do not make them more intelligent.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by InlawBiker

I think this is where Amazon's decision to use a closed system could bite them hard.

Greg

Yes, it could - but Google's marketplace is not going to materialize overnight (I don't expect to be able to buy an eBook there for at least a year), and there's time for Amazon to make adjustments, and continue to build market share. Google is not a proven retailer, either. I don't think they have as much skin in the game as Amazon. But it could get interesting if as sometimes rumored they partner up with Apple.

Still, I hope it puts pressure on Amazon to open things up.

[InlawBiker]

Originally Posted by tomsem

ePub can be DRM'ed in which case conversion will not be straightforward (and would probably be considered illegal by publishers).

On the other hand, if Google can convince publishers not to use DRM, presumably they would provide automatic conversions for most ebooks to whatever format you wanted, including mobi/azw. Why would they want any barriers to sales?

I'm sure Google will push for non-DRM ePub format. This is the best way to overtake the Amazon and Sony stores.

I liken it to the old AOL vs. Internet model. Why would people pay to use the inferior AOL network when the faster, bigger free Internet exists? Amazon and Sony have to keep their stores open, which surely cannot be cheap.

By selling non-DRM'd books, developers can create apps for netbooks, laptops, PDA's, and soon tablets that run on Android or whatever. For the "serious reader" manufacturers can create eInk devices that support ePub only, because now there's a market. They all have WiFi, which is becoming common enough to be almost as good as Whispernet.

Google only has to worry about delivering the books, not producing, shipping and supporting the hardware and stores.

Amazon made a pretty good run at trying to corner the market, but I think the Open model will win again.

[phenomshel]

I must say I'm surprised. I expected the Justice Department to derail this move for at least another year. And they may, yet. I'm cautiously optimistic. I hope Google has been watching Amazon and will be smart enough to learn from Amazon's mistakes. I don't care how Big Brother Google wants to get, as long as they have the books I want for sale at a reasonable price. For some of them, I dont' even care about reasonable price..how much is my time worth? If I'm going to spend 12 hours scanning ONE book, and another who knows how long proofreading it, then I might be willing to pay a higher price for the convenience of being able to purchase it at all.
I do have some concerns: I don't want to have to read the material online, I want it downloadable in a format my EZ Reader can handle, or I can format shift. I don't want a "new" even more restrictive DRM scheme. And I don't want to be locked into ONE way to access those books.

[Seabound]

I think Google should buy their employees eBook readers. I worry that Google will be ignoring eBook readers, since they say that readers will be able to read offline using a cached version of an eBook. Bad idea.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Seabound

I think Google should buy their employees eBook readers. I worry that Google will be ignoring eBook readers, since they say that readers will be able to read offline using a cached version of an eBook. Bad idea.

Yeah, I'm not getting that at all. There must be some kind of mistake. If this is their business model it sounds like a bucket of suck.

[Daithi]

It's confirmed -- their business model is a bucket of suck.

According to this Wallstreet Journal article --

Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker said consumers would not be able to download books in the same way Amazon's customers can buy copies of specific titles and store them on their Kindle. Instead, people who access books through Google would be able to read titles online and temporarily cache them in their Internet browsers so they could also read them offline.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Daithi

It's confirmed -- their business model is a bucket of suck.

According to this Wallstreet Journal article --

Yep, that's what I thought, equal amounts of suck and fail.

[Seabound]

Originally Posted by Daithi

It's confirmed -- their business model is a bucket of suck.

According to this Wallstreet Journal article --

One would think that Google folks were smarter than that. Maybe they don't read a lot of fiction.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Seabound

One would think that Google folks were smarter than that. Maybe they don't read a lot of fiction.

I suspected so, even posted it earlier in this thread post 25. But I'm not surprised this is their business model they tie everything to the internet.

But I can't see myself paying for an ebook where I have to surf the internet to read AND pay full price. Once they start losing money they'll catch on.


And this is why Amazon is dominating. While they do lock you into a platform, they make everything easy, convenient and affordable.

[IgnareAcademy]

Their business model is to serve advertisements, and make companies pay to appear innocently on the first page/pages of your search results (distorting the competition: most people will have a harder time finding stuff not paid to appear on the first page/pages). So they need you to read on internet to show you advertisements somewhere alongside the book you want to read.
The goal of the Google corporation is to make money, NOT to make anyone happy. It is always pathetic to see people project their dreams on a corporation.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by carld

Yep, that's what I thought, equal amounts of suck and fail.

Very disappointing.

[Musicman]

But yet another scam that restricts your fair use rights!

Next they will add a time restriction and make you pay again when you exceed it or want to read it again.

[tali3sin]

For people who don't care about what IgnareAcademy had to say, or how I might respond to his... opinion, then please, skip past all the areas with "quotes" in them.

Originally Posted by IgnareAcademy

You lose. Telling someone he is a conspiracy nut is akin to the methods used in the USSR, Eastern Germany, China, Nazi Germany to intimidate people who would go as far as think that the minority of people ruling over the vast majority were not above criticism.
You talk like the perfect slave/citizen in a totalitarian society, like the fanboy of the corporations whose products/services you use.
Too much power in too few hands is dangerous for democracy.
Databases (google is building the hugest database in history) destroy democracy, as was revealed during the last US presidential election. I remember seeing how for example the Democratic party used the very precise files they had on the vast majority of US citizens to deliver targeted political messages when they went door-to-door to try to convince people to vote for Obama. This way, people were convinced to vote selfishly basing their decision on precisely targeted talking-points that targeted a couple of their interests.
A serious voter in a democratic society should instead decide himself which issues are the most important not only for his own good but also for the general interest, and what exactly must be done about those issues. And then analyze by himself the platforms of the candidates to find the right one, already during the primaries.
And serious candidates should encourage people to vote that way, not cynically target people with the help of soulless advertisers.
Instead too many voters are overwhelmed by marketing campaigns that reach deeper and deeper into their minds to manipulate them, for example by inflating out of proportion new emotionally-charged issues like gay marriage, or by repeating key words like "change" ad nauseam, because advertisers found by psychologically studying panels of voters, that pushing those issues/words into people's minds was an efficient way to get many people to vote for one candidate or another.

No sir, YOU lose.

You chose to focus on one sentence out of that user's entire post. And then to take their feelings about a corporation, and extend the entire thing into the bounds of political manipulation? Then you compare them to a range of... shall we say, non-democratic governments, AND compare them (this single person, and their random, commonly used phrase) to Nazi Germany? Incredibly harsh, and altogether unnecessary. Way to go off-topic, but hey, obviously I'm going to join you.

Databases destroy democracy.

Obviously the bigger the database the more destruction! Curious viewpoint, given that databases are used to count votes, compile important and beneficial information, run small businesses, track, attack and support the average person, run the website you're posting on, and you know, are generally useful in almost all sections of modern (and some rather old) societies.
Way to be a luddite.

people were convinced to vote selfishly basing their decision on precisely targeted talking-points that targeted a couple of their interests

What? People shouldn't vote selfishly? People shouldn't vote for the things that interest, and concern... themselves? Thus including their family, loved ones, the poor, whatever, if they are so concerned. That's kind of what democracy is about, voting for what you want to. Voting selfishly, even if that selfishness means voting, god forbid, against what might be best for someone else, is kind of what democracy is for.

A serious voter in a democratic society should instead decide himself which issues are the most important not only for his own good but also for the general interest

So ah, you're assuming that the average person, when presented with a couple of

talking-points

that were designed to be relevant to their interests, wouldn't be able to think outside of their own most basic desires, and consider what might be nice for the greater good, and whether or not those niceties fall inside their own needs and desires for the government, as a democratic voter? Who sounds like a cynic now?

serious candidates should encourage people to vote that way, not cynically target people with the help of soulless advertisers

Vote what way? For the things they want? Again with this foolishness! Why shouldn't people vote for what they want? Why shouldn't candidates advertise the issues they support, to the people they know will be most receptive to them? Are you not coming here to talk about ideas and devices you support, with people you know will be receptive to these ideas and devices?

If you're concerned by voters being

overwhelmed by marketing campaigns

, maybe you should take that up in some kind of political forum, or have a few stern words with the education department while hoping for the best for the next couple of generations.
Meanwhile, you can get back to the topics at hand - and so can I - this whole eBook business, without the absurd accusations and claims. You kind of sound like a conspiracy theorist :-p

-

Now that that's over with...

Alright, so Google might charge a bit more for a lesser service. That may seem like a bad thing up front, but another entry into the market, particularly from a company as big as the Big G, can only be a good thing. Competition breeds lower prices, generally. Or at least new technologies, and better services (in the long run).

[Shaggy]

Instead, people who access books through Google would be able to read titles online and temporarily cache them in their Internet browsers so they could also read them offline.

Unless I'm missing something, caching it in your browser so you can read it offline also means you can save the thing to a file and import it to your reader.