No, it's likely to be different legitimate print runs. Sometimes the same paper is unavailable, sometimes a book moves to a different manufacturing method based on demand (e.g., offset to short run to print-on-demand).
The source of Amazon's problem is their third-party marketplace and their practice of "co mingling" third-party stock with their "regular" stock -- this is unlikely to be the case with Barnes & Noble
That's hyperbolic, don't you think? Is there anything in this policy that says you have to wear it anytime other than when you're actually sleeping? Put it on when you're ready to actually sleep, take it off when the alarm goes off. Rinse and repeat.
It muddies their actual meaning, and an unfortunate metaphor that gets in the way--does more to confuse than illuminate. These guys are onto something big, but they're not great at presenting it.
It made me have to pause for a minute because it was adjacent to a graph. It made me think Airbnb had published a graph somewhere and that their graph had been altered in some way that could be described loosely as "photoshopped".
But yes, the average print costs for a single-color book per unit are in the 2-4 dollar range (that is, manufacturing alone, no design, marketing, editing).
And how would it be possible for Amazon to "keep their lights on" selling physical books at 40% off list price, if they pay O'Reilly $36 for a $40 book? Amazon buys from O'Reilly and most other pubs at 60% off, non-returnable. So the math for the publishers' take from Amazon on physical books looks like this:
I wonder how Matt feels about getting feedback in this way, apart from the open licensing. So many of the comments seem superficial (something a good copyeditor might simply fix, later in the process). He seems to be a good sport in responding, though.
And will his developmental editor at O'Reilly use this interface? Or can public scrutiny stand in for editorial oversight, and the 'true' editing will be minimal? Perhaps a new model for book publishers.
Is there a post mortem written anywhere by authors who have used a public commenting feedback system like this (The Django Book, Real World Haskell, among others)? I'm curious if it would be helpful or mostly annoying to authors.
I wonder if the commenting system itself encourages trivial, nitpicky corrections rather than big picture feedback.
So far the feedback has been great. You are right a lot of comments are 'superficial' but they are still very helpful. Editors only come at the end of a project and I was eager to share the book content with people interested.
My publisher is looking at the comments and they are helpful to reshape the book's target and content.
It's also very encouraging as an author to see people interested in helping, even if it's just to help you with your grammar.
This move to re-sell the archives is really surprising -- I can certainly tell you that Scribd doesn't make much money selling electronic documents (i.e., ebooks) right now.
The conversion rate there is b-a-d bad--my experience has been ~3 sales per 200+k reads. Other publishers have seen similar rates. They have an audience who is simply not willing to pay.
This endeavor relies on a healthy ecosystem of news. This product is a recommendation system, a glorified web browser--not a newspaper. And it's insane to think that destroying the newspaper business is in these founders' best interest, if indeed they wish to "deliver the final blow to the newspaper industry." The arrogance and short-sightedness of the statement is thick.
I will never understand so many technical folks' glee in watching the decline of investigative reporting, media companies, publishing houses, and so on--especially when so many applications like this simply exploit the work of others, add a layer of abstraction on top. ("Exploit" being non-pejorative, simply descriptive.)
I don't find these comments entirely fair. Sure, the Register brings a tabloid voice to tech journalism. So do lots of media outlets and blogs.
Can you guys point to past journalistic errors or malfeasance on Vance's part (misquoting or otherwise)? Genuinely curious: Does he actually have a history?
I seem to recall I've read articles by him in the Economist that were insightful in the past year or two, presumably written to (or edited to) the voice of the paper. That said, I don't closely follow Vance's work.
Agreed. But perhaps looking at Tim's business partners is useful in understanding the context of the disavowal.
In my mind, I speculate on two situations, not mutually exclusive. (1) Ashlee really did muff the quote (motivation: lazy, sloppy, or something like it). He really seems like a nice guy, though I can't speak to his habits or prior reporting. Mistakes happen; this isn't the worst error I've seen in a newspaper.
(2) Tim wants to walk back his loose, negative talk (motivation: preserving relationship with Microsoft, including a material one, his co-publishing deal with Microsoft Press). [http://oreilly.com/pub/pr/2413]
Though now that I think of it, Tim probably had the sense not to be quite so nakedly dismissive of a partner so important, and especially one so touchy. Tim does have a great reason to bite his tongue, that's all.
The source of Amazon's problem is their third-party marketplace and their practice of "co mingling" third-party stock with their "regular" stock -- this is unlikely to be the case with Barnes & Noble