Random House to Adopt Agency Model Starting 3/1

[shadowcat80]

There's another reason they need to change their mindset against e-books though, Paper is a limited resource and the price of making books will also go up as the process becomes more costly.  Publishers stubborness on this could hurt them in the long run, they push out e-readers then later when books are killing them, they will wished they embraced it when the money was to be made, they will end up losing in the long run because of their short sighted view.

[ABthree]

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

There's another reason they need to change their mindset against e-books though, Paper is a limited resource and the price of making books will also go up as the process becomes more costly.  Publishers stubborness on this could hurt them in the long run, they push out e-readers then later when books are killing them, they will wished they embraced it when the money was to be made, they will end up losing in the long run because of their short sighted view.

---

ROFLMAO!  Where in the world do you get this stuff?  Paper hasn't been "a limited resource" since World War II.  I'm too young to remember that, and I believe that you are, too.

Thanks to plantation-grown wood pulp, there's so much virgin fiber available that the bottom has dropped out of the recycled paper market -- unfortunately, since we're choking on the stuff, but it means that all THAT capacity is still there, too.

And if paper DOES get more expensive, the publishers will just raise their prices.  They're troglodytes: they don't think much, and they don't think green.

It's always fun to participate in an interesting conversation, but it helps a lot not making things up.

[bklvr896]

---

ellsbells930 wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

Most people don't question pricing.  They pay what the price is if they want the book. 

---

Then they are fools.

---

Not necessarily and that's insulting.  Different people have different priorities.  Around here, it costs about $12 to get into a movie, I won't pay that because it's not worth to me.  Do I think people do are fools?  No, they have different priorities than I do.  I'd rather spend the money on a book, they'd rather spend in on a movie, that doesn't make either one of us a fool

[bklvr896]

Here's an extreme example Random House's pricing policy.  The eBook price is $24.99, the only print copy that B&N has for sale is the MMP at $7.91.  Not that I'm interested in this book but I wrote to Random House to ask them if this was a mistake or did they think eBook consumers were stupid.  Amazingly, I haven't heard back from them.

Shadow Magic

 

[shadowcat80]

I am just asking is this debate doing more harm to the forum then any benefit?  It seems like we're all attacking each other in this agruement, people have made good points on both sides, maybe its time to move on and look forward?

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

I am just asking is this debate doing more harm to the forum then any benefit?  It seems like we're all attacking each other in this agruement, people have made good points on both sides, maybe its time to move on and look forward?

---

By definition, debates involve arguing.  It doesn't necessarily mean there are any hard feelings.

How is this doing "harm to the forum"?  I'm missing something in the logic here.

See below:

Definitions of debate on the Web:

• argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
• consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
• discuss the pros and cons of an issue
• argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
• argue: have an argument about something
• the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[shadowcat80]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

I am just asking is this debate doing more harm to the forum then any benefit?  It seems like we're all attacking each other in this agruement, people have made good points on both sides, maybe its time to move on and look forward?

---

By definition, debates involve arguing.  It doesn't necessarily mean there are any hard feelings.

How is this doing "harm to the forum"?  I'm missing something in the logic here.

See below:

Definitions of debate on the Web:

• argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
• consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
• discuss the pros and cons of an issue
• argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
• argue: have an argument about something
• the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

---

Yes Alan but at some point it becomes white noise and, there's not much new content added as the same somments are repeated over and over and not much progress is made at all. 

[Ya_Ya]

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

Yes Alan but at some point it becomes white noise and, there's not much new content added as the same somments are repeated over and over and not much progress is made at all. 

---

This is a valid point, but as to the tone of the post, it was remarkably respectful, IMO, especially given the extremely wide variances of opinion.

[ABthree]

---

Ya_Ya wrote:

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

Yes Alan but at some point it becomes white noise and, there's not much new content added as the same somments are repeated over and over and not much progress is made at all. 

---

This is a valid point, but as to the tone of the post, it was remarkably respectful, IMO, especially given the extremely wide variances of opinion.

---

When enough people feel that way, they stop posting and the thread ends.   The process is automatic and self-regulating -- management not required.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

Ya_Ya wrote:

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

Yes Alan but at some point it becomes white noise and, there's not much new content added as the same somments are repeated over and over and not much progress is made at all. 

---

This is a valid point, but as to the tone of the post, it was remarkably respectful, IMO, especially given the extremely wide variances of opinion.

---

When enough people feel that way, they stop posting and the thread ends.   The process is automatic and self-regulating -- management not required.

---

And THEN about six months after the thread dies completely and everyone is tired of it somebody will reply to it and everything will possibly start all over again...

[shadowcat80]

I was just wondering are we at that point yet?  I care about many of you and hate when I fight with my friends.  There's been 5 pages plus on the subject what else can be said?  There's been a lot valid points, it been a good debate, I just can't see how much further it can go?  It seems like all the sides been well spoken for.

[bklvr896]

---

shadowcat80 wrote:

I was just wondering are we at that point yet?  I care about many of you and hate when I fight with my friends.  There's been 5 pages plus on the subject what else can be said?  There's been a lot valid points, it been a good debate, I just can't see how much further it can go?  It seems like all the sides been well spoken for.

---

I don't see this particular discussion as fighting, it's just a debate over book pricing and the agency model.  Nobody's getting nasty with anyone, people are just stating their opinion.  As someone else pointed out, that's debating, not fighting.

[AlanNJ Inspired Bibliophile]

And now we can potentially have five more pages debating whether or not the postings should continue on this thread....

[bklvr896]

---

AlanNJ wrote:

And now we can potentially have five more pages debating whether or not the postings should continue on this thread....

---

LOL Alan.  I'm going to add a post here just to get things started.

[ABthree]

---

bklvr896 wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

And now we can potentially have five more pages debating whether or not the postings should continue on this thread....

---

LOL Alan.  I'm going to add a post here just to get things started.

---

I'll take a piece of that.  I don't like people telling me what to do.

[Beth_DeEtt]

So...  Did I miss anything while I was gone?

*ducks and runs* 

[bklvr896]

---

ABthree wrote:

---

bklvr896 wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

And now we can potentially have five more pages debating whether or not the postings should continue on this thread....

---

LOL Alan.  I'm going to add a post here just to get things started.

---

I'll take a piece of that.  I don't like people telling me what to do.

---

Wonder how close we are to going to page 7???????????  (I need to use up my ? and ! allotment or they're going to expire)

[ProfReader]

ok, I'll bite agency pricing really sucks. nope that didn't do it

---

bklvr896 wrote:

---

ABthree wrote:

---

bklvr896 wrote:

---

AlanNJ wrote:

And now we can potentially have five more pages debating whether or not the postings should continue on this thread....

---

LOL Alan.  I'm going to add a post here just to get things started.

---

I'll take a piece of that.  I don't like people telling me what to do.

---

Wonder how close we are to going to page 7???????????  (I need to use up my ? and ! allotment or they're going to expire)

---

[ellsbells930]

---

Nallia wrote:

I think people who automatically judge others with different priorities to be fools are the real fools.

---

Thanks for the personal attack.  My comment was a generic comment, while yours was specifically aimed at me.  Have a nice day.

[mpebbs]

  I think calling anyone a fool for doing something you would not is a personal attack even if you do not name them. I also think using smilies to offset a really snarky comment is ridiculous, we are not fools in actuality.