I'm sorry if I set you off but until this post which I do think is extremely interesting you weren't addressing my points but rather took sentences out of context to make a tangential point of your own beneath them. I'm honestly not trying to play the victim what I was trying to do was get you to see that your style of discussion was actually hurting your cause. I don't know you, I don't know your intelligence level, I don't even really know your experience level in the industry, I don't know your expertise in economics, you're just some person I thought it would be interesting to have a conversation on the internet with. Hence for you to truly offend me would be very difficult. And more importantly if you did (and you have no way of knowing this) I'd simply take my ball and go home and quit posting rather than subject myself to it so until that happens rest assured I'm not playing the aggrieved victim.
Now on to the meat of your post. I agree with your point on branding at least in the short-medium term (which is about all that is predictable with any sort of SWAG as you point out). I think the O'Reilly thing is a good example in technical books. Do you think this will also happen in popular books? My personal experience has been that I have no idea who publishes the book unless something goes wrong (i.e. it won't download to my kindle properly or the binding falls apart) at which time I take note. Of course I don't do anything about it but it seems to be when I notice. More importantly with a few exceptions I don't know who owns which imprints. Do you think this is the norm or will people begin to associate quality (of content or medium) or lack there of with a specific imprint?
As for on demand printing do you think this will ever move far enough that distribution will be done electronically. Specifically will it become widespread enough that I don't ship books to any city with more than 20,000 people (or whatever size it takes to support a bookstore) because they can just go get it at a book store or perhaps far enough in the future their home? If so does this spell the end of the publisher as we know it (both big and small) and will they change into something else or is there still a spot for them in the distribution chain? Or does the bookstore become the publisher then? Will print quality (beyond the obvious readability factor) matter if the books are super cheap?
I get that Amazon currently takes a HUGE chunk of Kindle sales right now. Do you think this is a permanent feature or do you think some sort of competition will open up the ebook market so that Amazon doesn't control what can and can't be delivered to the Kindle version 8 (or whatever)? The reason I ask is because I see the Kindle as the only really good reader right now. If it were one of ten or a hundred do you think they'd still have this level of control on how the profits get split?
I do see the future being better for the small guy (which is I think the only point we really disagree on) as all of those service differentiators you mention are coming down in price. With the fall in price the small guy and the big guy get closer in the value the provide but the big guy can't support his monolithic and expensive structure any more (unless of course he finds another differentiator). Consolidation through acquisition is the first defense to this but in the end it usually doesn't end well for the big guys. I'm curious as to the current state right now. Are you seeing that you're having trouble attracting authors and they're shopping around between publishers? If so is this the nature of a niche industry or a super popular author or do you think this is common for a popular book first time author as well? The reason I ask is this was not the case 10 years ago and while some authors and works were creating bidding wars most aren't fit to publish so the publishers were combing through piles of crud to find the gems and authors were flinging their works at the publishers to the point that many wouldn't accept unsolicited materials. If this has changed that would be interesting to know.
Again thanks for the conversation I really do find this all interesting.
Agreed good DMs will cover up a lot of problems with the rules but it's even more fun when you get both and the DM becomes more of a setting author and less of a rules referee (at least IMO)
I take slight issue with your analogy regarding classic board games. They have very simple rules that allow for complex tactics but the complexity and freedom of the player are not the same thing. These games offer complex strategies but few options in individual moves. This results in strategies being an emergent behavior of the simple moves not something that is inherent in the game design itself. These games of course do this because that is what must be done to provide a fair field of play for a competitive game. I should say that I love both of the games you mention so I'm not dismissing them in any way just pointing out that they have different design goals than an RPG. Also we're talking opinions and recreation here so I don't think either approach is invalid in any way.
The fun part of an RPG (to me) is the development of a character and the flexibility of approaching the game on a whole different playing field for each character. I want something less restrictive than chess' or go's playing playing field in an RPG. That said I totally get what you're saying about ease to learn. The more complex RPGs definitely take multiple campaigns before you're building fully functioning and unique characters. I just prefer the complex richness and flexibility to the easy of use, at least for RPGs. I certainly wouldn't want to play free-form go or chess or poker but I love those games in their constrained formats.
I would disagree that their marketing has improved. 3rd edition was pretty impressive with how much it grew the industry. What I would be very curious to see is Hasbro's 3rd edition versus 4th edition numbers. I'd love to know how many the brought in versus how many they lost. etc. BTW, as a disclaimer I'm not super pro 3rd edition or anything I just think it was the pinnacle of business success for D&D so far. I played back in the 1st Edition (i.e. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) and 2nd Edition days and have played a small amount of 3rd edition, 4th edition, and various other systems.
That said the rest of what you say has a pretty good point to it and I'm glad it brought you into a hobby that I hope you enjoy. I'd also be curious to see where you are in 2-5 years and if you've moved on to something that supports more complex and challenging role-playing side of things or if the tactical challenge is what you enjoy. 4th edition plays like a artificial tactical game to me and really doesn't provide the effective simulation feel of previous versions. I feel more like I'm playing a card game or a board game but that's just my personal feeling.
Again, I am glad it introduced you to table top RPGs and I hope it helps grow the market as a whole. I just don't know if I believe that it has without seeing some numbers given the contentious nature of it's launch.
Agreed. I think every time they grow the industry they get too worried about what everyone else is doing and try to get the piece of the pie the competition is eating rather than focusing on making the pie bigger. Hasbro is certainly not the only people to do this and it doesn't take a big company to do it. TSR and co. in the past have also as you point out snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm tempted to just say "who cares 4th edition sucked" since I don't personally like it and think it is dumbed down MMO style mechanics made into a table top game. In fact I think the fact that I bought the first set of books probably hurt Hasbro in the long term. If I had previewed them somehow and didn't like them I probably would have continued to look at their products but since I bought them and didn't like them I haven't picked up another 4th edition product. However, in the spirit of an actual discussion I'll give my 2 cents beyond just my dislike of 4th Edition.
I think you're about to see Hasbro get all litigious on folks because they are not making what they think they ought to from the brand. Whatever the reason I think when companies start worrying about this kind of nonsense rather than continually producing good content its a harbinger of hard times ahead. Hopefully they'll sell of the brand or others like Pathfinder will take their place. I think it was a bad sign when they nixed the d20 license from 3rd edition. I don't know what Hasbro's numbers looked like but the industry as a whole was much better off when everyone was writing d20 products and the bookstores and cons were full of the stuff. Today D&D is almost irrelevant among the people that I know who still play RPGs. As a disclaimer, I'm just a sad creature who still reads through the books for entertainment value and writes a few pieces from time to time.
However, claiming to be ad homed in every post gets tiresome.
Using the phrase "you don't have any idea what you're talking about" then not addressing why and going on to argue points that have nothing to do with my post is what I was talking about. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who shouts "you're wrong stupid head" over and over again. Perhaps it's not the cleanest description of the term ad hominem if you want to argue semantics but I think it's unhelpful and muddies the conversation. I appreciate that it was not your intention, however. What I was trying to communicate in my last post wasn't some whining about you doing it but trying to make you aware that it was hurting your ability to discuss a topic with any real eye toward honest debate in which you're able to both teach and learn rather than just scoring points here and there like some sort of pseudo political debate.
Ok, I guess I don't understand then. It seems to me that claiming that publishers COULD pay higher royalties if they wanted to (because if "they don't have to", then they obviously could if they wanted to?) and that the reason they don't have to is because of "industry standard practice" and market barriers that artificially limit competition sounds exactly like saying that royalties are too low. Is that an unfair interpretation?
If a labor shortage were to happen today in publishing so that there were 1 writer for every 100 publishers they would have to do something to attract authors and controlling labor costs would no longer be a significant issue in the profit calculations. I believe you would see royalties rise at that point. That is not the current condition, and likely never will be iMO as I think the industry will change before that extreme of a skewing ever happens and royalties will likely vanish all together as publishers become service companies rather than risk taking middle men. (Just a prediction).
I also think that if/when this happens writers will gain a much larger share of the profits as there will not be a middle man to mitigate the risk of failure like there is today. Hence that middle man will not provide a service that is worth the same share of the profits he gets today. He will also not carry the same costs so the in this hypothetical new world he will still make money, maybe more maybe less, from a smaller piece of the profit.
Right now they don't have to worry about this hence the term "they don't have to" or perhaps I should have more accurately stated there is no economic driver for them to currently raise royalties so through standard practices every gets to control their labor costs and take this particular variable out of their risk equation (or at least make it a constant).
I'm 29...
Just because I say you come off sounding like some old man doesn't mean I think you're an old man, it means this style hurts your argument by having you sound like one. I did actually read where you acknowledged that change would happen but you seem to dismiss my view of what that change will be and not offer any view of your own but instead revert back to your defense of the current royalty system. Given that I have no qualms with your description of the current royalty system I would be more interested in what you think the changing market will bring because I think the big success will be for first guys to crack what that new model is. Any ideas?
Ok, since I guess my first sentence (I read over the rest of my post and don't think it condescending..?) was a bit strident, I apologize for saying that your suggestions was "insane." My bad. I absolutely DO stand by my statement that you obviously did not know what you were talking about when you entered the conversation.
Anytime you open with that and stand by it you're not looking for a conversation you're looking for an argument.
I disagree with this statement and believe you are factually incorrect. (As I'll explain in the rest of this post -- to be clear when I said "area of academic publishing I'm currently working" this is a very niche field--there are far more than a dozen publishers out there...)
Then it's hardly applicable to the whole field of publishing.
I disagree with this statement and believe you are factually incorrect again. What I described is the traditional small-medium publisher model. What authors like the one discussed in this article expect (ie, $10,000 advances, etc). There are all kinds of publishers out there, for instance, vanity publishers. There exist publishers who will publish your book if YOU pay them. You could print 2000 copies of a book you wrote for easy less than $10,000 out of your pocket if you wanted. That's bearable for many people. If you don't want standing inventory, marketing, professional layout, etc, go to on-demand publishing/printing. lulu.com. There's an option for everybody.
First $10,000 isn't bearable for the average writer. Just because you or I could pay it doesn't mean the majority of writers could. Second just getting the book printed is not the same value proposition as publishing with the promotion and distribution channels that come with a real publisher. But it is getting closer, hence my point about this situation will not last forever.
What is "it" and how is it going to get better? The publishing industry is full of competition right now. To claim otherwise I believe shows an ignorance of the facts. From vanity publishers (heck to lulu.com!!) to small publishers to giant corporations, there are a huge variety of publishers.
Competition is better than it used to be and it will get batter to the point that the middle man will slowly disappear or take on a very different role.
Ok, so you say "industry standard practices that let them act like a trust" and I summarize as cartel. Difference?
It's the difference between acting like a trust and being a trust. You use a loaded word to make the end result being the same seem like there is some nefarious activity by publishers which I never claimed.
What exact barriers are you talking about? Middle men are useful where they provide a useful service. The 20th century saw perhaps the greatest rise of middlemen ever! Heck, witness the demise of "For Sale By Owner"... realtors... my personal pet peeve in our new society of helplessness.
This is just kind of a random rant so I'm not sure how modern victim mentality or helplessness (I assume this is what you mean but I could be wrong) and the rise of the middle man are related. I'll address the rise of the middle man however. You are correct middle men are useful in markets with barriers to entry and distribution issues. Publishing has been one such market. I believe that is changing and publishing will have to change it's nature and instead sell services related to publishing rather than be the gatekeeper to the market that they have been and currently are. Eventually all the things you mention (i.e. digital distribution, print-on-demand, major etc) will make the publishing and promotional part the least valuable portion of the business and the publishers will have to change what they offer to survive. What is that? I'm not sure, perhaps editing services, art creation services, maybe they
Because they don't have to. They have "industry standard practices" that effectively let them act like a trust without technically being a trust. It's a form of implicitly limiting labor costs. As publishing becomes more and more frictionless and major publishers less and less valuable they'll get smaller, control less, and authors will earn more as they become more competitive. As long as they control the entry point into a market however they can pretty much use these types of practices.
This is insane.There are TONS of small presses out there--Apress is one of them. It's true that publishing has become more homogenized over the years (in the area of academic publishing I'm currently working, 30 years ago there were maybe a 1-2 dozen fair sized publishers--today they have mostly been bought out, so you have 3 giants, 1-2 small/medium, and a number of very small) but there's not any kind of "cartel" that you're fantastically believing in.
Since you obviously don't know the numbers, I'll run them for you....
So first of all, way to be a condescending jerk in the tone of your post.
Second, you're making my point for me. There are small publishers out there. But there are still far fewer publisher slots for books than there are authors hence the publisher is the scare resoruce. Additionally, all the costs you list are not bearable by a lone author, yet. Hence authors don't yet have bargaining power and publishers are able to act a middle man controlling access to the market. Did it used to be worse with fewer publishers controlling entry? sure. Is it going to get better as costs come down and there aren't barriers to entry and competition of product not competition of distribution becomes the deciding factor? yep.
Third I didn't use the word "cartel" or indicate any type of conspiracy. In fact I said they got to act like an effective trust through the use of "industry practices" without actually being a trust. Once the barriers to entry come down the same effect that let little publishers get in an compete with big ones will let authors get in and compete with all publishers. Middle men are only useful in industries with significant barriers to entry or difficult distribution.
Why doesn't a publisher just offer 40% royalties or something and annihilate the competition?
Because they don't have to. They have "industry standard practices" that effectively let them act like a trust without technically being a trust. It's a form of implicitly limiting labor costs. As publishing becomes more and more frictionless and major publishers less and less valuable they'll get smaller, control less, and authors will earn more as they become more competitive. As long as they control the entry point into a market however they can pretty much use these types of practices.
I disagree. I read books on my Kindle and my iPhone when I'm out and about and it's a 10x better on the Kindle. I couldn't read only on my iPhone. I'd rather just own the book if that were the case but the Kindle is a great reading experience. The iPhone is an acceptable short-term solution when I'm sitting and waiting on an appointment.
A more interesting stat would be how many have a current generation PC. I own both but only because I have previous generation PCs. I do most of my Windows work in a virtual machine on the Mac. What would be telling is if Mac users also had a current gen PC because they Mac didn't suit their needs across the board. Or at least that would be a more interesting stat to me since Apple is the one pushing the "switch" from the de facto standard.
Could he really be so desperate to feed his narcissism?
Yes
It's not about what makes sense it's about what gets him in the news. He's either a truly deluded technophobe fanatic or he's using the large numbers of truly deluded technophobe fanatics to lead a movement and make money. You don't need a law license to go to court (at least not in some jurisdictions...not sure about all) just to sell that service to others.
Exactly with whom is Apple colluding here? They went to other network providers, but they all turned up their noses, because they were not going to give any cell phone manufacturer the opportunity to horn in on their closed business and sales models. Until Apple came along, cell phone manufacturers had little or nothing to say in the design or marketing of their devices. They were entirely dependent on the whims of their network providers, because that was the only way and still is mostly true of how all cell phones are sold even still today. Apple's iPhone certainty isn't the only one that is tied to particular network.
Everything you say is true.
Again, I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores not making a one for one analogy hence the last sentence of the post. The original post was to explain what I believed Google's strategy to be, you complained that I was advocating the regulation of Apple. My next post was to explain that I wasn't pro-regulation but that the first post was about Google's strategy. Then I pointed out what I felt was a fallacy in your argument explicitly pointing out that I was not using a one for one analogy and you jumped on that and treated it like a one for one analogy. I'd suggest you read the posts before you reply unless you're just trolling I suppose in which case...good job, you win.
Just to be clear I'm not even anti-apple...I own a ton of apple crap from a 17 inch powerbook to numerous iPods and yes even an iPhone. That said if I were Google I'd be doing the same thing.
It is no the same thing, not even in the same ballpark, not even the same game. You are bringing a cricket bat to a boxing match.
There is nothing to stop Walmart from not selling A the Sony Vaio WGA3. There is no laws to stop Walmart from not selling any Sony product at all. Are you demented?
It's almost like you guys can't read or don't bother to. I actually said it's not the same thing. The parent post was about regulated markets versus unregulated markets. I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores too, nothing more. Rather than trying to be clever with your ranting analogy of an analogy try to understand the main points of the conversation and contribute next time.
As for what I was talking about, we do however stop Sony from selling TVs to Wal-mart at 10% of cost so they drive all other TV sellers out of business with an agreement to then raise the price to 10x the previous market value so that both benefit from a marketplace without competition.
We also keep competing stores from getting together and fixing prices arbitrarily high for TVs or splitting up the city into protected sales zones where one store sells in District A and one in District B. Again the point was about regulation not about forcing someone to sell something.
At heart, I'm actually probably much closer to a Randian absolutist than you or my post makes me sound. That said the telecom and stock markets in which the companies participate are highly regulated (not necessarily effectively regulated) and any concept of an absolutist free market is only a dream. While, I might (and do) prefer a system that was much less regulated and self-corrected and punished impropriety through bankruptcy and risk of ruin that's not the world we live in and if we're going to regulate markets we should focus on effective regulation not necessarily more of it.
That said, I was really trying to shed light on Google's strategy not necessarily advocate for or against it and I agree with your point that it extends well beyond the immediate action of FCC vs Apple.
Oh and by the way we do regulate brick and mortar stores to keep them from colluding to box out third parties from a market through anti-competative deals and price fixing. It's pretty much what anti-trust is all about. It's not quite the same here but there are overlaps.
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
So first of all my post wasn't to say that it should be legislated that Apple open their app store. Please reread my post. My point was to answer the question why Google was going after them. From Google's standpoint it makes perfect sense to try and force open app stores.
Second to respond to your post...
Actually, your analogy is flawed. Not all merchants are equal. Private companies that do not rely on regulated equity markets for capital and companies that don't rely on regulated product markets (like telecoms) are not the same as public companies selling in a regulated market. You can't protect them through regulation and then call hands off free market at other times. Well I guess you can but it makes for a pretty non-competative business arena which is of course why all big companies try it when it suits them. Because Apple and AT&T are public companies that benefit from participating in a regulatory heavy, non-competative market as well as a regulatory heavy equity trading market in which they raise capital your analogy isn't really sound. Should they wish to compete in an open free market devoid of regulation I agree that they should be left alone.
Actually I don't really care what happens to them as I will just dump my iPhone for something else if it becomes too much of an issue for me but that is the other side of the argument.
Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!.
The short answer is because they're big and can afford to make a point. The long answer is that they likely see that the closed app store model is not good for them and other third-parties that are in competition with app store owners. Given that apple is currently the biggest and best app store if you make a point with them and set a legal/regulatory precedent with them they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open which is better for Google. My guess is that they believe this long-term advantage far outweighs the value of simply getting their app on the iPhone.
He is within the law to go after these people but IMO that is a minimum standard for a public official. This is especially true of an official who has limited resources to enforce laws so he must make decisions on priorities. In my opinion he is prioritizing on personal agenda rather than public good and I believe this is an abuse of power and misuse of public resource (though I don't believe it to be illegal). When faced with these situations in a democracy the appropriate response is to replace him or force him to be replaced with a better steward of public trust and individual rights. Hence despite the fact that I think the summAry was misleading and he is legal safe I think the citizenry should take action.
If you RTFA (I know, I know) he isn't saying he's going after everyone who posts negative stuff. He's saying he's going after people who pretend to be police officers or officials while posting and people who post libelous material.
All that said, the citizens of Austin should band together and get this idiot fired. This kind of ridiculous type of activity against citizens is an abuse of power if not is the legal meaning of that phrase then in the spirit of it. We shouldn't have to put up with public officials who when their feelings are hurt lash out using their offices and positions to punish critics, even the ridiculous ones. If the police chief wants to sue them in civil court with his own money and lawyers he should go right ahead. If he wants to hunt them with public resources he should be run out of town. GO DO YOUR JOB!!! and stop worrying about who is saying mean things in the school yard, sir.
It is as if a million nerd voices cried out all at once and then went suddenly silent...as sobbing and whimpering emerges from the basements of America.
Someone write an email that sends out the "new democratic party platform". Feel free to copy it from the Republicans site. Then send it to all the known big donors. I figure 10,000 emails and five minutes later and this hole will be closed. Politicians (of all persuasions) only respond to two things and reason is not one of them. Votes and money. Threaten those and they'll be all over this. =)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry if I set you off but until this post which I do think is extremely interesting you weren't addressing my points but rather took sentences out of context to make a tangential point of your own beneath them. I'm honestly not trying to play the victim what I was trying to do was get you to see that your style of discussion was actually hurting your cause. I don't know you, I don't know your intelligence level, I don't even really know your experience level in the industry, I don't know your expertise in economics, you're just some person I thought it would be interesting to have a conversation on the internet with. Hence for you to truly offend me would be very difficult. And more importantly if you did (and you have no way of knowing this) I'd simply take my ball and go home and quit posting rather than subject myself to it so until that happens rest assured I'm not playing the aggrieved victim.
Now on to the meat of your post. I agree with your point on branding at least in the short-medium term (which is about all that is predictable with any sort of SWAG as you point out). I think the O'Reilly thing is a good example in technical books. Do you think this will also happen in popular books? My personal experience has been that I have no idea who publishes the book unless something goes wrong (i.e. it won't download to my kindle properly or the binding falls apart) at which time I take note. Of course I don't do anything about it but it seems to be when I notice. More importantly with a few exceptions I don't know who owns which imprints. Do you think this is the norm or will people begin to associate quality (of content or medium) or lack there of with a specific imprint?
As for on demand printing do you think this will ever move far enough that distribution will be done electronically. Specifically will it become widespread enough that I don't ship books to any city with more than 20,000 people (or whatever size it takes to support a bookstore) because they can just go get it at a book store or perhaps far enough in the future their home? If so does this spell the end of the publisher as we know it (both big and small) and will they change into something else or is there still a spot for them in the distribution chain? Or does the bookstore become the publisher then? Will print quality (beyond the obvious readability factor) matter if the books are super cheap?
I get that Amazon currently takes a HUGE chunk of Kindle sales right now. Do you think this is a permanent feature or do you think some sort of competition will open up the ebook market so that Amazon doesn't control what can and can't be delivered to the Kindle version 8 (or whatever)? The reason I ask is because I see the Kindle as the only really good reader right now. If it were one of ten or a hundred do you think they'd still have this level of control on how the profits get split?
I do see the future being better for the small guy (which is I think the only point we really disagree on) as all of those service differentiators you mention are coming down in price. With the fall in price the small guy and the big guy get closer in the value the provide but the big guy can't support his monolithic and expensive structure any more (unless of course he finds another differentiator). Consolidation through acquisition is the first defense to this but in the end it usually doesn't end well for the big guys. I'm curious as to the current state right now. Are you seeing that you're having trouble attracting authors and they're shopping around between publishers? If so is this the nature of a niche industry or a super popular author or do you think this is common for a popular book first time author as well? The reason I ask is this was not the case 10 years ago and while some authors and works were creating bidding wars most aren't fit to publish so the publishers were combing through piles of crud to find the gems and authors were flinging their works at the publishers to the point that many wouldn't accept unsolicited materials. If this has changed that would be interesting to know.
Again thanks for the conversation I really do find this all interesting.
Agreed good DMs will cover up a lot of problems with the rules but it's even more fun when you get both and the DM becomes more of a setting author and less of a rules referee (at least IMO)
I take slight issue with your analogy regarding classic board games. They have very simple rules that allow for complex tactics but the complexity and freedom of the player are not the same thing. These games offer complex strategies but few options in individual moves. This results in strategies being an emergent behavior of the simple moves not something that is inherent in the game design itself. These games of course do this because that is what must be done to provide a fair field of play for a competitive game. I should say that I love both of the games you mention so I'm not dismissing them in any way just pointing out that they have different design goals than an RPG. Also we're talking opinions and recreation here so I don't think either approach is invalid in any way.
The fun part of an RPG (to me) is the development of a character and the flexibility of approaching the game on a whole different playing field for each character. I want something less restrictive than chess' or go's playing playing field in an RPG. That said I totally get what you're saying about ease to learn. The more complex RPGs definitely take multiple campaigns before you're building fully functioning and unique characters. I just prefer the complex richness and flexibility to the easy of use, at least for RPGs. I certainly wouldn't want to play free-form go or chess or poker but I love those games in their constrained formats.
I would disagree that their marketing has improved. 3rd edition was pretty impressive with how much it grew the industry. What I would be very curious to see is Hasbro's 3rd edition versus 4th edition numbers. I'd love to know how many the brought in versus how many they lost. etc. BTW, as a disclaimer I'm not super pro 3rd edition or anything I just think it was the pinnacle of business success for D&D so far. I played back in the 1st Edition (i.e. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) and 2nd Edition days and have played a small amount of 3rd edition, 4th edition, and various other systems.
That said the rest of what you say has a pretty good point to it and I'm glad it brought you into a hobby that I hope you enjoy. I'd also be curious to see where you are in 2-5 years and if you've moved on to something that supports more complex and challenging role-playing side of things or if the tactical challenge is what you enjoy. 4th edition plays like a artificial tactical game to me and really doesn't provide the effective simulation feel of previous versions. I feel more like I'm playing a card game or a board game but that's just my personal feeling.
Again, I am glad it introduced you to table top RPGs and I hope it helps grow the market as a whole. I just don't know if I believe that it has without seeing some numbers given the contentious nature of it's launch.
Agreed. I think every time they grow the industry they get too worried about what everyone else is doing and try to get the piece of the pie the competition is eating rather than focusing on making the pie bigger. Hasbro is certainly not the only people to do this and it doesn't take a big company to do it. TSR and co. in the past have also as you point out snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Buddha phone? It lives in harmony with everything but has a certain self-righteousness to it that turns other phones off?
I'm tempted to just say "who cares 4th edition sucked" since I don't personally like it and think it is dumbed down MMO style mechanics made into a table top game. In fact I think the fact that I bought the first set of books probably hurt Hasbro in the long term. If I had previewed them somehow and didn't like them I probably would have continued to look at their products but since I bought them and didn't like them I haven't picked up another 4th edition product. However, in the spirit of an actual discussion I'll give my 2 cents beyond just my dislike of 4th Edition.
I think you're about to see Hasbro get all litigious on folks because they are not making what they think they ought to from the brand. Whatever the reason I think when companies start worrying about this kind of nonsense rather than continually producing good content its a harbinger of hard times ahead. Hopefully they'll sell of the brand or others like Pathfinder will take their place. I think it was a bad sign when they nixed the d20 license from 3rd edition. I don't know what Hasbro's numbers looked like but the industry as a whole was much better off when everyone was writing d20 products and the bookstores and cons were full of the stuff. Today D&D is almost irrelevant among the people that I know who still play RPGs. As a disclaimer, I'm just a sad creature who still reads through the books for entertainment value and writes a few pieces from time to time.
However, claiming to be ad homed in every post gets tiresome.
Using the phrase "you don't have any idea what you're talking about" then not addressing why and going on to argue points that have nothing to do with my post is what I was talking about. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who shouts "you're wrong stupid head" over and over again. Perhaps it's not the cleanest description of the term ad hominem if you want to argue semantics but I think it's unhelpful and muddies the conversation. I appreciate that it was not your intention, however. What I was trying to communicate in my last post wasn't some whining about you doing it but trying to make you aware that it was hurting your ability to discuss a topic with any real eye toward honest debate in which you're able to both teach and learn rather than just scoring points here and there like some sort of pseudo political debate.
Ok, I guess I don't understand then. It seems to me that claiming that publishers COULD pay higher royalties if they wanted to (because if "they don't have to", then they obviously could if they wanted to?) and that the reason they don't have to is because of "industry standard practice" and market barriers that artificially limit competition sounds exactly like saying that royalties are too low. Is that an unfair interpretation?
If a labor shortage were to happen today in publishing so that there were 1 writer for every 100 publishers they would have to do something to attract authors and controlling labor costs would no longer be a significant issue in the profit calculations. I believe you would see royalties rise at that point. That is not the current condition, and likely never will be iMO as I think the industry will change before that extreme of a skewing ever happens and royalties will likely vanish all together as publishers become service companies rather than risk taking middle men. (Just a prediction).
I also think that if/when this happens writers will gain a much larger share of the profits as there will not be a middle man to mitigate the risk of failure like there is today. Hence that middle man will not provide a service that is worth the same share of the profits he gets today. He will also not carry the same costs so the in this hypothetical new world he will still make money, maybe more maybe less, from a smaller piece of the profit.
Right now they don't have to worry about this hence the term "they don't have to" or perhaps I should have more accurately stated there is no economic driver for them to currently raise royalties so through standard practices every gets to control their labor costs and take this particular variable out of their risk equation (or at least make it a constant).
I'm 29...
Just because I say you come off sounding like some old man doesn't mean I think you're an old man, it means this style hurts your argument by having you sound like one. I did actually read where you acknowledged that change would happen but you seem to dismiss my view of what that change will be and not offer any view of your own but instead revert back to your defense of the current royalty system. Given that I have no qualms with your description of the current royalty system I would be more interested in what you think the changing market will bring because I think the big success will be for first guys to crack what that new model is. Any ideas?
Oh and apparently due to a meatware problem I didn't log in but I did write the above response.
Ok, since I guess my first sentence (I read over the rest of my post and don't think it condescending..?) was a bit strident, I apologize for saying that your suggestions was "insane." My bad. I absolutely DO stand by my statement that you obviously did not know what you were talking about when you entered the conversation.
Anytime you open with that and stand by it you're not looking for a conversation you're looking for an argument.
I disagree with this statement and believe you are factually incorrect. (As I'll explain in the rest of this post -- to be clear when I said "area of academic publishing I'm currently working" this is a very niche field--there are far more than a dozen publishers out there...)
Then it's hardly applicable to the whole field of publishing.
I disagree with this statement and believe you are factually incorrect again. What I described is the traditional small-medium publisher model. What authors like the one discussed in this article expect (ie, $10,000 advances, etc). There are all kinds of publishers out there, for instance, vanity publishers. There exist publishers who will publish your book if YOU pay them. You could print 2000 copies of a book you wrote for easy less than $10,000 out of your pocket if you wanted. That's bearable for many people. If you don't want standing inventory, marketing, professional layout, etc, go to on-demand publishing/printing. lulu.com. There's an option for everybody.
First $10,000 isn't bearable for the average writer. Just because you or I could pay it doesn't mean the majority of writers could. Second just getting the book printed is not the same value proposition as publishing with the promotion and distribution channels that come with a real publisher. But it is getting closer, hence my point about this situation will not last forever.
What is "it" and how is it going to get better? The publishing industry is full of competition right now. To claim otherwise I believe shows an ignorance of the facts. From vanity publishers (heck to lulu.com!!) to small publishers to giant corporations, there are a huge variety of publishers.
Competition is better than it used to be and it will get batter to the point that the middle man will slowly disappear or take on a very different role.
Ok, so you say "industry standard practices that let them act like a trust" and I summarize as cartel. Difference?
It's the difference between acting like a trust and being a trust. You use a loaded word to make the end result being the same seem like there is some nefarious activity by publishers which I never claimed.
What exact barriers are you talking about? Middle men are useful where they provide a useful service. The 20th century saw perhaps the greatest rise of middlemen ever! Heck, witness the demise of "For Sale By Owner" ... realtors ... my personal pet peeve in our new society of helplessness.
This is just kind of a random rant so I'm not sure how modern victim mentality or helplessness (I assume this is what you mean but I could be wrong) and the rise of the middle man are related. I'll address the rise of the middle man however. You are correct middle men are useful in markets with barriers to entry and distribution issues. Publishing has been one such market. I believe that is changing and publishing will have to change it's nature and instead sell services related to publishing rather than be the gatekeeper to the market that they have been and currently are. Eventually all the things you mention (i.e. digital distribution, print-on-demand, major etc) will make the publishing and promotional part the least valuable portion of the business and the publishers will have to change what they offer to survive. What is that? I'm not sure, perhaps editing services, art creation services, maybe they
Because they don't have to. They have "industry standard practices" that effectively let them act like a trust without technically being a trust. It's a form of implicitly limiting labor costs. As publishing becomes more and more frictionless and major publishers less and less valuable they'll get smaller, control less, and authors will earn more as they become more competitive. As long as they control the entry point into a market however they can pretty much use these types of practices.
This is insane.There are TONS of small presses out there--Apress is one of them. It's true that publishing has become more homogenized over the years (in the area of academic publishing I'm currently working, 30 years ago there were maybe a 1-2 dozen fair sized publishers--today they have mostly been bought out, so you have 3 giants, 1-2 small/medium, and a number of very small) but there's not any kind of "cartel" that you're fantastically believing in. Since you obviously don't know the numbers, I'll run them for you....
So first of all, way to be a condescending jerk in the tone of your post.
Second, you're making my point for me. There are small publishers out there. But there are still far fewer publisher slots for books than there are authors hence the publisher is the scare resoruce. Additionally, all the costs you list are not bearable by a lone author, yet. Hence authors don't yet have bargaining power and publishers are able to act a middle man controlling access to the market. Did it used to be worse with fewer publishers controlling entry? sure. Is it going to get better as costs come down and there aren't barriers to entry and competition of product not competition of distribution becomes the deciding factor? yep.
Third I didn't use the word "cartel" or indicate any type of conspiracy. In fact I said they got to act like an effective trust through the use of "industry practices" without actually being a trust. Once the barriers to entry come down the same effect that let little publishers get in an compete with big ones will let authors get in and compete with all publishers. Middle men are only useful in industries with significant barriers to entry or difficult distribution.
Why doesn't a publisher just offer 40% royalties or something and annihilate the competition?
Because they don't have to. They have "industry standard practices" that effectively let them act like a trust without technically being a trust. It's a form of implicitly limiting labor costs. As publishing becomes more and more frictionless and major publishers less and less valuable they'll get smaller, control less, and authors will earn more as they become more competitive. As long as they control the entry point into a market however they can pretty much use these types of practices.
I disagree. I read books on my Kindle and my iPhone when I'm out and about and it's a 10x better on the Kindle. I couldn't read only on my iPhone. I'd rather just own the book if that were the case but the Kindle is a great reading experience. The iPhone is an acceptable short-term solution when I'm sitting and waiting on an appointment.
A more interesting stat would be how many have a current generation PC. I own both but only because I have previous generation PCs. I do most of my Windows work in a virtual machine on the Mac. What would be telling is if Mac users also had a current gen PC because they Mac didn't suit their needs across the board. Or at least that would be a more interesting stat to me since Apple is the one pushing the "switch" from the de facto standard.
Wasn't this idiot disbarred a couple years ago?
Yes
Could he really be so desperate to feed his narcissism?
Yes
It's not about what makes sense it's about what gets him in the news. He's either a truly deluded technophobe fanatic or he's using the large numbers of truly deluded technophobe fanatics to lead a movement and make money. You don't need a law license to go to court (at least not in some jurisdictions...not sure about all) just to sell that service to others.
....to keep them from colluding...
Exactly with whom is Apple colluding here? They went to other network providers, but they all turned up their noses, because they were not going to give any cell phone manufacturer the opportunity to horn in on their closed business and sales models. Until Apple came along, cell phone manufacturers had little or nothing to say in the design or marketing of their devices. They were entirely dependent on the whims of their network providers, because that was the only way and still is mostly true of how all cell phones are sold even still today. Apple's iPhone certainty isn't the only one that is tied to particular network.
Everything you say is true.
Again, I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores not making a one for one analogy hence the last sentence of the post. The original post was to explain what I believed Google's strategy to be, you complained that I was advocating the regulation of Apple. My next post was to explain that I wasn't pro-regulation but that the first post was about Google's strategy. Then I pointed out what I felt was a fallacy in your argument explicitly pointing out that I was not using a one for one analogy and you jumped on that and treated it like a one for one analogy. I'd suggest you read the posts before you reply unless you're just trolling I suppose in which case...good job, you win.
Just to be clear I'm not even anti-apple...I own a ton of apple crap from a 17 inch powerbook to numerous iPods and yes even an iPhone. That said if I were Google I'd be doing the same thing.
It is no the same thing, not even in the same ballpark, not even the same game. You are bringing a cricket bat to a boxing match.
There is nothing to stop Walmart from not selling A the Sony Vaio WGA3. There is no laws to stop Walmart from not selling any Sony product at all. Are you demented?
It's almost like you guys can't read or don't bother to. I actually said it's not the same thing. The parent post was about regulated markets versus unregulated markets. I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores too, nothing more. Rather than trying to be clever with your ranting analogy of an analogy try to understand the main points of the conversation and contribute next time.
As for what I was talking about, we do however stop Sony from selling TVs to Wal-mart at 10% of cost so they drive all other TV sellers out of business with an agreement to then raise the price to 10x the previous market value so that both benefit from a marketplace without competition.
We also keep competing stores from getting together and fixing prices arbitrarily high for TVs or splitting up the city into protected sales zones where one store sells in District A and one in District B. Again the point was about regulation not about forcing someone to sell something.
At heart, I'm actually probably much closer to a Randian absolutist than you or my post makes me sound. That said the telecom and stock markets in which the companies participate are highly regulated (not necessarily effectively regulated) and any concept of an absolutist free market is only a dream. While, I might (and do) prefer a system that was much less regulated and self-corrected and punished impropriety through bankruptcy and risk of ruin that's not the world we live in and if we're going to regulate markets we should focus on effective regulation not necessarily more of it.
That said, I was really trying to shed light on Google's strategy not necessarily advocate for or against it and I agree with your point that it extends well beyond the immediate action of FCC vs Apple.
Oh and by the way we do regulate brick and mortar stores to keep them from colluding to box out third parties from a market through anti-competative deals and price fixing. It's pretty much what anti-trust is all about. It's not quite the same here but there are overlaps.
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
So first of all my post wasn't to say that it should be legislated that Apple open their app store. Please reread my post. My point was to answer the question why Google was going after them. From Google's standpoint it makes perfect sense to try and force open app stores.
Second to respond to your post...
Actually, your analogy is flawed. Not all merchants are equal. Private companies that do not rely on regulated equity markets for capital and companies that don't rely on regulated product markets (like telecoms) are not the same as public companies selling in a regulated market. You can't protect them through regulation and then call hands off free market at other times. Well I guess you can but it makes for a pretty non-competative business arena which is of course why all big companies try it when it suits them. Because Apple and AT&T are public companies that benefit from participating in a regulatory heavy, non-competative market as well as a regulatory heavy equity trading market in which they raise capital your analogy isn't really sound. Should they wish to compete in an open free market devoid of regulation I agree that they should be left alone.
Actually I don't really care what happens to them as I will just dump my iPhone for something else if it becomes too much of an issue for me but that is the other side of the argument.
Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!.
The short answer is because they're big and can afford to make a point. The long answer is that they likely see that the closed app store model is not good for them and other third-parties that are in competition with app store owners. Given that apple is currently the biggest and best app store if you make a point with them and set a legal/regulatory precedent with them they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open which is better for Google. My guess is that they believe this long-term advantage far outweighs the value of simply getting their app on the iPhone.
;)
Or they could just be sticking it to Apple
He is within the law to go after these people but IMO that is a minimum standard for a public official. This is especially true of an official who has limited resources to enforce laws so he must make decisions on priorities. In my opinion he is prioritizing on personal agenda rather than public good and I believe this is an abuse of power and misuse of public resource (though I don't believe it to be illegal). When faced with these situations in a democracy the appropriate response is to replace him or force him to be replaced with a better steward of public trust and individual rights. Hence despite the fact that I think the summAry was misleading and he is legal safe I think the citizenry should take action.
If you RTFA (I know, I know) he isn't saying he's going after everyone who posts negative stuff. He's saying he's going after people who pretend to be police officers or officials while posting and people who post libelous material.
All that said, the citizens of Austin should band together and get this idiot fired. This kind of ridiculous type of activity against citizens is an abuse of power if not is the legal meaning of that phrase then in the spirit of it. We shouldn't have to put up with public officials who when their feelings are hurt lash out using their offices and positions to punish critics, even the ridiculous ones. If the police chief wants to sue them in civil court with his own money and lawyers he should go right ahead. If he wants to hunt them with public resources he should be run out of town. GO DO YOUR JOB!!! and stop worrying about who is saying mean things in the school yard, sir.
To a bank $50,000 is nothing.
It is as if a million nerd voices cried out all at once and then went suddenly silent...as sobbing and whimpering emerges from the basements of America.
Someone write an email that sends out the "new democratic party platform". Feel free to copy it from the Republicans site. Then send it to all the known big donors. I figure 10,000 emails and five minutes later and this hole will be closed. Politicians (of all persuasions) only respond to two things and reason is not one of them. Votes and money. Threaten those and they'll be all over this. =)