<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on Technology Rewrites the Book





Begin forwarded message:

From: Rob McMillin <rlm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 25, 2006 9:46:14 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Egor Kobylkin <egor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Technology Rewrites the Book

David Farber wrote:



Begin forwarded message:

From: Egor Kobylkin <egor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 24, 2006 5:51:23 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Technology Rewrites the Book

Dave, for your list, if you wish.

From: Monty Solomon <monty@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 23, 2006 11:02:15 PM EDT
To: undisclosed-recipient:;
Subject: Technology Rewrites the Book


Technology Rewrites the Book

By PETER WAYNER
The New York Times
July 20, 2006
...
said. "This is as good as any book in a bookstore."

...

and Blurb will make a
copy just for that buyer.

I was confused as to why the CD's or DVD's are not made completely on demand? They have way lot less polygraphy on them, and they are intrincically digital. But then I thought, there must be much less titles of them in the top 80% of sales, than there will be of the books. So by keeping, say 1000 preprinted titles in stock a small DVD shop with no Internet can be in business.

But also because of the higher variety, books should have a higher price/cost ratio to cover the additional costs of the logistics due to lover average volumes, it makes bookstores a more attractive victim to substitution with a print on demand service.

On the other hand, one already can have almost any album from a major music studio for 9.99 from iTunes in 5 minutes.

So now, when the books can be done on demand economically, when will I be able to go to a shop and let them print for me any CD/ DVD in the world in 5 minutes?

Having been involved indirectly with a venture that was attempting to do exactly this, I can tell you. The reason is basically Microsoft. No retailer wanted to devote floor space to a system that couldn't sell Microsoft products, and no software publisher wouldn't come on board unless Microsoft was, too. Microsoft always hemmed and hawed, saying it was a good idea, but approval never got past the middle levels of the company. It's kind of too bad, because Comp USA penciled out the numbers and estimated that not having returns on software would add a percentage point to their profit margin.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/