It's handy to have the tools and the image in one window if you only have one monitor. I often work with my laptop while traveling or sitting at home and don't have the option of or the space for a second monitor. Sometimes having a the tools window and an image window becomes very inconvenient because the tool window is constantly getting pushed to the back of several applications/image windows. I constantly have to stop what I'm doing so I can find it and bring it back to the front.
In another thread I talked about the issues I had with tiling under Windows 7 so I could see both tool and image windows at the same time. I use Kubuntu now and the tiling works much better.
The only problem I see with your suggestion is the constant flipping back and forth between desktops or screens.
I use two monitors at work, but I still find having a tools window on one screen and the image on the other a pain to constantly be moving back and forth between. I've learned a lot of the shortcut keys to avoid having to move my mouse to far between my work and the tool box, this also comes in handy when I'm working at home on a single monitor laptop. Mind you I'm not a professional graphic artist and my usage of GIMP is limited to the occasional display poster I might do once or twice a year or a more sentimental piece I'd do at home.
That being said if you were just putting the finishing touches on a photo, CG work or another piece having the image use as much real estate as possible is the better way to go. In that case I'd want the tools in a separate window.
I have to admit when I was using GIMP under Windows 7, having multiple windows for different toolboxes + the image window was a pain in the arse. I couldn't get the tiling to work properly. I made the move to Kubuntu about a month ago and after the initial shock getting use to a new interface and configuring the desktop I found it definitely works as good as windows in many respects and better in others; such as being able to tile the separate toolboxes in GIMP and getting the window to snap to its nearest neighbor (something I couldn't figure out in Windows 7).
The interface changes I think will be ok. It's a "single-window mode" so I would assume that means if you don't want to use single window mode you don't have to.
If you load it up with no disc in it the "disc channel" shows an image of a big disc printed with "Wii" and a small disk printed with "Gamecube".
Guess I haven't paid that much attention. I've only had the Wii a month now and I mostly bought it for my wife. Other than playing with her in Wii sports and Wii fit, putting an SD card in it and downloading a couple of cheep games from the Wii store for her, I haven't done much with it. With Nintendo's track record for consoles there was really no reason to assume the Wii would be backward compatible. I also don't see why no one had ever made a big deal about this it was one of the main features with the PS2 and PS3. I'd figure someone I know who has a Wii, and there's a lot of them, would have said something. I guess most people just figure it's common knowledge so no one bothered to mention it.
That's what I was concerned about. Most CD tray drives have a special smaller indent for the smaller CD's, but auto loading slots don't normally take them. I'm glad you told me, there were a ton of Game Cube games my wife wanted that I didn't get because... No game cube..
It's good that Nintendo finally caught on to the backward compatibility thing. I really like the Wii ware and virtual console stores it has as well, very convenient and easy to use.
I'm sorry I called you a moron. It was wrong of me. I keep telling myself it's not worth getting in a screaming match with a 15 year old, and yet I continuously fall for it. Shame on me.
funny mine had the functionality. I haven't read any statistics on what functionality the majority of PS3s have. I only know that it was about one to two years ago it was disabled. I've had mine for about 4 years now. I don't know when they disabled the functionality, but seeing as how the majority of product sales takes place during the initial release period, I'd have to assume the minority of consoles has the functionality disabled. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Aside from yourself that is.
I did not know I could play Game Cube games on the Wii. Now that I do know I can "borrow" some of my younger brothers GC games while he's away at university. Thanks.
I have an old NES and a Super Nintendo. I ended up buying a PS2 instead of a game cube, which I'm glad I did. I don't recall much coming out for the GC I really wanted, but there were tons of games for the PS2 I ended up buying.
I've read that PlayTV isn't in North America (yet) because of the differences in broadcasting methods. That being said I suspect it's more of an issue with cable and satellite companies not wanting it here.
I know in my local area there are two competing cable companies each offer their own version of digital TV with DVRs/PVRs. If I could get the PlayTV box I would have no reason to pay extra for digital cable or rent the DVR/PVR from my local company because my PS3 would become a PVR for me using just the basic cable.
The difference between Basic and Digital cable for the provider I'm with is about $20/month, but you don't get any more channels unless you also get the digital channel package for an additional $25/month. The digital package is basic cable + the same basic channels in digital format. The DVR for digital cable or the PVR for regular cable is $15/month to rent from the cable provider. I can buy a DVR at Best Buy, but they're over $100 and I'd still need to get digital cable to use it. So for $60/month more than what I'm paying now I'd still get a whole lot of nothing.
There was an episode of House. They had a monitor and the guy had to think yes or no to move the mouse pointer to the correct button to answer questions.
Aside from what metamatic's post brought up. Graphics aren't always everything. I enjoyed games from the Super Nintendo age because I found the graphics where enjoyable, but the actual games themselves were far easier to follow and they had much better story lines. I find with graphics being the big thing in games today a lot of what I value in a game has been lost. They can still be fun, but it seems the other stuff gets left out just so there can be more focus on blowing stuff up of flashy movie sequences. Don't get me wrong I enjoy some of the flashy stuff, but I just don't what a game where it's basically an interactive movie or button mashing.
The FF series is my favorite. I have the Anthology and Chronicles, FFVII, FFVIII and FFIX for PS1. FFX, FFX2 and FFXII for PS2. So you can see if I game up the backward compatibility that would be a whole lot of wasted money and I would lose out on being able to play some of my favorite games.
That's part of what I like about the Play station as opposed to Nintendo. One console plays all my games. I have three different Nintendo systems for each set of games I have.
You do make a good point about hindering technology in order to maintain backward compatibility. I'm a software developer who took over several projects previously maintained by contractors who didn't know what they were doing or didn't care.
That being said I probably still wouldn't own a PS3 if I couldn't play my old games on it. There wouldn't have been any point. They still don't have many games out that I want for it and I've only bought two in the last 3-4 years. I like the PS3 for all the other things it can do, but they're after the fact awesome features I wouldn't have known/cared about if I didn't buy it to play my old games on while I waited for other games I wanted to come out.
I just found the whole removal of functionality thing upsetting because I recommended the PS3 to people (some whom aren't tech savvy and didn't care about media servers, installing Linux or BluRay) specifically because of the backward compatibility. Then they went and pulled the functionality out. By the time I found out about it several friends and my sister in-law had gone out and bought one to find out it couldn't play old games. Two of my friends took theirs back, but ended up with store credit instead of their money back. No where on the box or otherwise is it clearly stated the backward compatibility was removed. It was just taken out and left up to people to find out after they had already spent the money.
I completely agree with you about the reasons to buy a PS3, I also put Linux on mine. But I bought it because I had previously owned PS1 and PS2 games. When I bought the PS3 it was backward compatible so I wasn't worried about buying new games for it right away. Here we are 3-4 years later and there still aren't many games I want for the PS3.
The bait and switch seems to be becoming Sony's mantra. Like Micorsoft's "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish". I was recommending the PS3 to friends because of what could be done with it on top of it's backward computability. My Sister in law bought one just after they removed the PS2 compatibility. She's pretty pissed now because she had to also go out and buy a whole bunch of new games for it. I told her to just take it back and complain, but she didn't listen. All I know is if/when they come out with a PS4 if it's not backward compatible and has at least the same functionality as the PS3 Sony can kiss my ass. I'll buy new games when they come out with games I like, it's bad enough I have a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, PS3 and a Wii hooked up to my TV. I'm running out of input jacks to plug things in.
Does anyone know if Sony put the PS2 compatibility back into the PS3? Other then the article about the guy who "Hacked" the PS3, I haven't heard much about since it was removed and there was a big stink about it.
Nope I live in Canada. Thanks for the idea though. I hadn't considered Amazon. Although, I have had a lot of trouble in the past with order stuff from American sites. Amazon might have a Canadian version of the site like HP. I wanted to buy an HP MediaSmart server, of course the one I wanted with the 1TB drive and 2Gb of ram was only available from the American site, which didn't ship to Canada. The Canadian site had a similar model, but it only came with a.5 TB drive and 512 Mb of ram. I was very disappointed, So I had my older Sister in North Carolina order it. She's moving back in May and is bringing it with her. The other problem I have is sometimes things are legal in the states, but not in Canada, and vice versa, so if I find something on an American site they might not ship to Canada. If they do ship here I might get a visit from customs officers or the police.
The target audience (teenagers) sees themselves as poor, or actually is poor
The pirate can't be poor.
I don't know too many teenagers that pay for their own Internet or expensive hardware. I seem to remember not being able to buy my own first PC until I was in my second year of University.
That sense of entitlement is really more typical of someone who has less at risk.
Adults have way more to risk by pirating then teens do. Maybe a teen will get taken to court for piracy, but who will end up paying the final fees? Most likely the parents.
I rather doubt he is he is a teenager as well.
I could agree that pirates are not all teenagers, but I think teens make up a good portion. I know my parents aren't savvy enough to pirate stuff from the net, although my Dad will rent a movie and burn it... then never watch it again. My much younger siblings and I are way more likely to pirate stuff. For me it's not a matter of money, I can and do buy things to support the makers of the stuff I like. However, I'm not going to throw my money at people because I read some over-hyped reviews about a game just to get it home and find out it's not really my style.
Another reason I initially pirate games is I run Linux on my PC. I'm not going to buy a game that I can't at the very least get to run under WINE. I've had it happen before where I've downloaded a game it worked under WINE then the retail version didn't work, but that was ok, because I still had the pirated version I could use. I would have been extremely pissed if I had bought the retail version, found out I couldn't get it to work, went for the pirated version and found out that didn't work either.
I look at pirating more like I'm renting something, except for free. Don't get me wrong I support my local movie stores, but I've had several occasions where I wanted something, but couldn't find in anywhere in my local area. I'm a big anime fan, but none of my local stores carry anything decent. My other option is to buy something form HMV (the only place I've found that sells anime) and pay $30 for a four or five episode disk and well over $150 for an entire season of something. So I'll download a series and watch it. If I like it I'll buy it from ebay or if it's cheaper at HMV I'll buy it there.
Sorry, but if you have been paying attention the eBook market is much, much smaller than the market for printed books.
If you have been paying attention you'd know that E-Readers are a relatively (compared to books) new product, and that the market for e-books is growing. Hence the reason for this discussion.
Most people want a physical book.
That's a very good point, and the main reason my wife doesn't want an e-reader. I do think that will change with time, but it's hard to say. Having a physical object in hand that can be given to anyone and only requires the skill of reading to use vs. an electronic device that requires power, can only access books in certain formats and have a plethora of other restrictions on what can be done with them.
The price point is the reason I haven't bought an e-reader. I can't see a reason to go an purchase an e-reader when the price of the books is virtually the same. So instead of getting a good discount on the books because the publisher saves money on the physical distribution aspect. I pay the same for the books plus have to buy the reader, I can only access books of specific formats and the formats might change in the future.
Of course, you will sell almost none of them - no editing and no promotion. That's where the publisher comes in.
Another good point. I agree with you that a publishing company would make these things easier. However, I think someone with similar skills to myself could do this on their own and with digital distribution there's no need for them to pay $3 a copy and by 1000 copies. I have to admit I'm ignorant about how digital distribution works and I don't know how you'd go about getting a entity such as Amazon to distribute a book for you, but I'm sure all it would take is an initial lump-sum fee plus a smaller fee (probably in the less than a dollar range) for each downloaded copy. Seems much more like the JITI method of distribution, much more efficient then printing, transporting, storing thousands of copies that you might never end up selling.
You make a lot of very good points and have given me more to think about when looking at the price of a book. I especially like your input on the digital format issue. My sister was given a Kindle for Christmas, which got me thinking about the format issue. I wondered what would happen when the Kindle 2 is released, and if they'll keep the same format indefinitely?
The way I see the issue on pricing is that once a book has been processed enough to be distribued there are two options. 1) print the book and physically distribute it or 2) store it on a server somewhere and make an infinite number of copies that people interested in reading the book will download.
To me it seems the cost over time would be very different. In situation 1 you have a finite number of copies that have the added cost of physical materials (paper, ink, transportation, storage, etc) cost associated with it. In situation 2 there's only the cost of the server(s) to store the digital book on. Users can continue to buy that one copy forever. so instead of printing 100 books and making $10 off each one, you can distribute an infinite number of books making $10 off each one. That sounds like a bit of a scam to me because you're making a much larger profit for much less work.
I know you won't actually distribute an infinite number of books because there aren't an infinite number of people to buy them, but the point I'm trying to make is the market is much wider.
Slashdot Mirror
He shoots and scores!!! I see you're still living up to your /. ID
My Grandfather always said, "There's a slim chance you'll ever win the lottery, but if you don't at least buy a ticket you won't even get that."
It's handy to have the tools and the image in one window if you only have one monitor. I often work with my laptop while traveling or sitting at home and don't have the option of or the space for a second monitor. Sometimes having a the tools window and an image window becomes very inconvenient because the tool window is constantly getting pushed to the back of several applications/image windows. I constantly have to stop what I'm doing so I can find it and bring it back to the front.
In another thread I talked about the issues I had with tiling under Windows 7 so I could see both tool and image windows at the same time. I use Kubuntu now and the tiling works much better.
The only problem I see with your suggestion is the constant flipping back and forth between desktops or screens.
I use two monitors at work, but I still find having a tools window on one screen and the image on the other a pain to constantly be moving back and forth between. I've learned a lot of the shortcut keys to avoid having to move my mouse to far between my work and the tool box, this also comes in handy when I'm working at home on a single monitor laptop. Mind you I'm not a professional graphic artist and my usage of GIMP is limited to the occasional display poster I might do once or twice a year or a more sentimental piece I'd do at home.
That being said if you were just putting the finishing touches on a photo, CG work or another piece having the image use as much real estate as possible is the better way to go. In that case I'd want the tools in a separate window.
I thought it was a good joke.
I have to admit when I was using GIMP under Windows 7, having multiple windows for different toolboxes + the image window was a pain in the arse. I couldn't get the tiling to work properly. I made the move to Kubuntu about a month ago and after the initial shock getting use to a new interface and configuring the desktop I found it definitely works as good as windows in many respects and better in others; such as being able to tile the separate toolboxes in GIMP and getting the window to snap to its nearest neighbor (something I couldn't figure out in Windows 7).
The interface changes I think will be ok. It's a "single-window mode" so I would assume that means if you don't want to use single window mode you don't have to.
If you load it up with no disc in it the "disc channel" shows an image of a big disc printed with "Wii" and a small disk printed with "Gamecube".
Guess I haven't paid that much attention. I've only had the Wii a month now and I mostly bought it for my wife. Other than playing with her in Wii sports and Wii fit, putting an SD card in it and downloading a couple of cheep games from the Wii store for her, I haven't done much with it. With Nintendo's track record for consoles there was really no reason to assume the Wii would be backward compatible. I also don't see why no one had ever made a big deal about this it was one of the main features with the PS2 and PS3. I'd figure someone I know who has a Wii, and there's a lot of them, would have said something. I guess most people just figure it's common knowledge so no one bothered to mention it.
The Wii has a special slot-loading drive
That's what I was concerned about. Most CD tray drives have a special smaller indent for the smaller CD's, but auto loading slots don't normally take them. I'm glad you told me, there were a ton of Game Cube games my wife wanted that I didn't get because... No game cube..
It's good that Nintendo finally caught on to the backward compatibility thing. I really like the Wii ware and virtual console stores it has as well, very convenient and easy to use.
I'm sorry I called you a moron. It was wrong of me. I keep telling myself it's not worth getting in a screaming match with a 15 year old, and yet I continuously fall for it. Shame on me.
funny mine had the functionality. I haven't read any statistics on what functionality the majority of PS3s have. I only know that it was about one to two years ago it was disabled. I've had mine for about 4 years now. I don't know when they disabled the functionality, but seeing as how the majority of product sales takes place during the initial release period, I'd have to assume the minority of consoles has the functionality disabled. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Aside from yourself that is.
Dude give it a rest an stop nit-picking. Just cuz you're too stupid to take advantage of something other do. Doesn't make them the exception. Moron
I did not know I could play Game Cube games on the Wii. Now that I do know I can "borrow" some of my younger brothers GC games while he's away at university. Thanks.
I have an old NES and a Super Nintendo. I ended up buying a PS2 instead of a game cube, which I'm glad I did. I don't recall much coming out for the GC I really wanted, but there were tons of games for the PS2 I ended up buying.
I've read that PlayTV isn't in North America (yet) because of the differences in broadcasting methods. That being said I suspect it's more of an issue with cable and satellite companies not wanting it here.
I know in my local area there are two competing cable companies each offer their own version of digital TV with DVRs/PVRs. If I could get the PlayTV box I would have no reason to pay extra for digital cable or rent the DVR/PVR from my local company because my PS3 would become a PVR for me using just the basic cable.
The difference between Basic and Digital cable for the provider I'm with is about $20/month, but you don't get any more channels unless you also get the digital channel package for an additional $25/month. The digital package is basic cable + the same basic channels in digital format. The DVR for digital cable or the PVR for regular cable is $15/month to rent from the cable provider. I can buy a DVR at Best Buy, but they're over $100 and I'd still need to get digital cable to use it. So for $60/month more than what I'm paying now I'd still get a whole lot of nothing.
There was an episode of House. They had a monitor and the guy had to think yes or no to move the mouse pointer to the correct button to answer questions.
Aside from what metamatic's post brought up. Graphics aren't always everything. I enjoyed games from the Super Nintendo age because I found the graphics where enjoyable, but the actual games themselves were far easier to follow and they had much better story lines. I find with graphics being the big thing in games today a lot of what I value in a game has been lost. They can still be fun, but it seems the other stuff gets left out just so there can be more focus on blowing stuff up of flashy movie sequences. Don't get me wrong I enjoy some of the flashy stuff, but I just don't what a game where it's basically an interactive movie or button mashing.
The FF series is my favorite. I have the Anthology and Chronicles, FFVII, FFVIII and FFIX for PS1. FFX, FFX2 and FFXII for PS2. So you can see if I game up the backward compatibility that would be a whole lot of wasted money and I would lose out on being able to play some of my favorite games.
Ah, but if you live in Australia then the way your swirly spins is the correct way and the American bullies are backward.
That's part of what I like about the Play station as opposed to Nintendo. One console plays all my games. I have three different Nintendo systems for each set of games I have.
You do make a good point about hindering technology in order to maintain backward compatibility. I'm a software developer who took over several projects previously maintained by contractors who didn't know what they were doing or didn't care.
That being said I probably still wouldn't own a PS3 if I couldn't play my old games on it. There wouldn't have been any point. They still don't have many games out that I want for it and I've only bought two in the last 3-4 years. I like the PS3 for all the other things it can do, but they're after the fact awesome features I wouldn't have known/cared about if I didn't buy it to play my old games on while I waited for other games I wanted to come out.
I just found the whole removal of functionality thing upsetting because I recommended the PS3 to people (some whom aren't tech savvy and didn't care about media servers, installing Linux or BluRay) specifically because of the backward compatibility. Then they went and pulled the functionality out. By the time I found out about it several friends and my sister in-law had gone out and bought one to find out it couldn't play old games. Two of my friends took theirs back, but ended up with store credit instead of their money back. No where on the box or otherwise is it clearly stated the backward compatibility was removed. It was just taken out and left up to people to find out after they had already spent the money.
I completely agree with you about the reasons to buy a PS3, I also put Linux on mine. But I bought it because I had previously owned PS1 and PS2 games. When I bought the PS3 it was backward compatible so I wasn't worried about buying new games for it right away. Here we are 3-4 years later and there still aren't many games I want for the PS3.
The bait and switch seems to be becoming Sony's mantra. Like Micorsoft's "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish". I was recommending the PS3 to friends because of what could be done with it on top of it's backward computability. My Sister in law bought one just after they removed the PS2 compatibility. She's pretty pissed now because she had to also go out and buy a whole bunch of new games for it. I told her to just take it back and complain, but she didn't listen. All I know is if/when they come out with a PS4 if it's not backward compatible and has at least the same functionality as the PS3 Sony can kiss my ass. I'll buy new games when they come out with games I like, it's bad enough I have a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, PS3 and a Wii hooked up to my TV. I'm running out of input jacks to plug things in.
Does anyone know if Sony put the PS2 compatibility back into the PS3? Other then the article about the guy who "Hacked" the PS3, I haven't heard much about since it was removed and there was a big stink about it.
Nope I live in Canada. Thanks for the idea though. I hadn't considered Amazon. Although, I have had a lot of trouble in the past with order stuff from American sites. Amazon might have a Canadian version of the site like HP. I wanted to buy an HP MediaSmart server, of course the one I wanted with the 1TB drive and 2Gb of ram was only available from the American site, which didn't ship to Canada. The Canadian site had a similar model, but it only came with a .5 TB drive and 512 Mb of ram. I was very disappointed, So I had my older Sister in North Carolina order it. She's moving back in May and is bringing it with her. The other problem I have is sometimes things are legal in the states, but not in Canada, and vice versa, so if I find something on an American site they might not ship to Canada. If they do ship here I might get a visit from customs officers or the police.
The target audience (teenagers) sees themselves as poor, or actually is poor
The pirate can't be poor.
I don't know too many teenagers that pay for their own Internet or expensive hardware. I seem to remember not being able to buy my own first PC until I was in my second year of University.
That sense of entitlement is really more typical of someone who has less at risk.
Adults have way more to risk by pirating then teens do. Maybe a teen will get taken to court for piracy, but who will end up paying the final fees? Most likely the parents.
I rather doubt he is he is a teenager as well.
I could agree that pirates are not all teenagers, but I think teens make up a good portion. I know my parents aren't savvy enough to pirate stuff from the net, although my Dad will rent a movie and burn it... then never watch it again. My much younger siblings and I are way more likely to pirate stuff. For me it's not a matter of money, I can and do buy things to support the makers of the stuff I like. However, I'm not going to throw my money at people because I read some over-hyped reviews about a game just to get it home and find out it's not really my style.
Another reason I initially pirate games is I run Linux on my PC. I'm not going to buy a game that I can't at the very least get to run under WINE. I've had it happen before where I've downloaded a game it worked under WINE then the retail version didn't work, but that was ok, because I still had the pirated version I could use. I would have been extremely pissed if I had bought the retail version, found out I couldn't get it to work, went for the pirated version and found out that didn't work either.
I look at pirating more like I'm renting something, except for free. Don't get me wrong I support my local movie stores, but I've had several occasions where I wanted something, but couldn't find in anywhere in my local area. I'm a big anime fan, but none of my local stores carry anything decent. My other option is to buy something form HMV (the only place I've found that sells anime) and pay $30 for a four or five episode disk and well over $150 for an entire season of something. So I'll download a series and watch it. If I like it I'll buy it from ebay or if it's cheaper at HMV I'll buy it there.
I appreciate the time you took to explain this. I find it very informative and it gives me a lot to consider.
Sorry, but if you have been paying attention the eBook market is much, much smaller than the market for printed books.
If you have been paying attention you'd know that E-Readers are a relatively (compared to books) new product, and that the market for e-books is growing. Hence the reason for this discussion.
Most people want a physical book.
That's a very good point, and the main reason my wife doesn't want an e-reader. I do think that will change with time, but it's hard to say. Having a physical object in hand that can be given to anyone and only requires the skill of reading to use vs. an electronic device that requires power, can only access books in certain formats and have a plethora of other restrictions on what can be done with them.
The price point is the reason I haven't bought an e-reader. I can't see a reason to go an purchase an e-reader when the price of the books is virtually the same. So instead of getting a good discount on the books because the publisher saves money on the physical distribution aspect. I pay the same for the books plus have to buy the reader, I can only access books of specific formats and the formats might change in the future.
Of course, you will sell almost none of them - no editing and no promotion. That's where the publisher comes in.
Another good point. I agree with you that a publishing company would make these things easier. However, I think someone with similar skills to myself could do this on their own and with digital distribution there's no need for them to pay $3 a copy and by 1000 copies. I have to admit I'm ignorant about how digital distribution works and I don't know how you'd go about getting a entity such as Amazon to distribute a book for you, but I'm sure all it would take is an initial lump-sum fee plus a smaller fee (probably in the less than a dollar range) for each downloaded copy. Seems much more like the JITI method of distribution, much more efficient then printing, transporting, storing thousands of copies that you might never end up selling.
You make a lot of very good points and have given me more to think about when looking at the price of a book. I especially like your input on the digital format issue. My sister was given a Kindle for Christmas, which got me thinking about the format issue. I wondered what would happen when the Kindle 2 is released, and if they'll keep the same format indefinitely?
The way I see the issue on pricing is that once a book has been processed enough to be distribued there are two options. 1) print the book and physically distribute it or 2) store it on a server somewhere and make an infinite number of copies that people interested in reading the book will download.
To me it seems the cost over time would be very different. In situation 1 you have a finite number of copies that have the added cost of physical materials (paper, ink, transportation, storage, etc) cost associated with it. In situation 2 there's only the cost of the server(s) to store the digital book on. Users can continue to buy that one copy forever. so instead of printing 100 books and making $10 off each one, you can distribute an infinite number of books making $10 off each one. That sounds like a bit of a scam to me because you're making a much larger profit for much less work.
I know you won't actually distribute an infinite number of books because there aren't an infinite number of people to buy them, but the point I'm trying to make is the market is much wider.
Don't they work on a four week cycle?