November 2nd, 2012 — Business, Economy, Politics
For … well, it seems like for ever, I’ve heard leftists complain about Wall Street and its obsession with the next quarter. Instead of basing our economy on short term profits, we need to base it on politics.
Then you can call taxes “investments”. Because Congress and Presidencies always take the long view.
Well, not really, of course, but let’s pretend. Let’s pretend that politicians aren’t worried as much about profits as doing the right thing. That would be great, wouldn’t it?
It would be sort of like Amazon is doing.
Except that when a private enterprise acts that way, it’s “terrifying“:
what makes Amazon not just amazing but downright dangerous is that as a financial matter it has something even better than profits—the boundless faith of the investment community. … Wall Street is on board with an Amazon business strategy that doesn’t require it to actually make profits as long as it increases sales volumes. And if you’re in any line of business where you compete with Amazon–and Amazon is in a lot of businesses, and seems to get into new ones each year—that should terrify you.
It’s this “tails you lose, heads I win” thing — goalpost moving at its most obnoxious — that I find most objectionable about conversations with leftists, and why, increasingly, I just assume there’s no point.
October 29th, 2012 — Books
My Kindle just lost a bunch of highlights from one of my favorite books. (I probably helped it, but I don’t know what I did, which makes me wonder if I’ll lose them again.)
If you have second thoughts of your own about e-Books, you may be interested in these articles about backing up your e-Library and/or defeating the DRM.
April 17th, 2012 — Books
Since I’m talking about the Kindle, I should give my opinion about the Department of Justice lawsuit against the big publishers. (Like you asked.) (So what? Who’s blog is this?)
Here’s the deal. The DOJ alleges that the big publishers colluded with Apple to develop an “Agency” pricing model that allowed them to raise prices on eBook titles beyond the $9.99 that Amazon was trying to establish as the normative price for new titles in its Kindle market.
The lawsuit will establish whether or not such collusion took place. But it doesn’t matter, according to people like the New York Times‘ David Carr:
Let’s stipulate that there may have been some manner of price-fixing here…. But … [f]rom the very beginning and with increasingly regularity, Amazon has used its market power to bully and dictate.
The Atlantic‘s Jordan Weissman agrees that guilt or innocence is missing the point:
The publishers come off as a smidgen less than sympathetic in this tale. The government’s filings are filled, for instance, with descriptions of hush hush dinners…. But…Amazon isn’t simply a garden variety retailer, or a helpless, well-meaning innovator. It’s the dominant force in books, and especially digital publishing.
It might be true they broke the law, in other words, but! since it’s Amazon, then it’s okay. (Remember the image of Lady Justice on courthouses with a special blindfold that lets her see whether the victim is Amazon?)
Nonsense. The reason Amazon has a near monopoly in the market is that its Kindle reads documents packaged in a proprietary format. Once I buy a couple of books published in Amazon’s Kindle format, I’m less and less inclined to buy books in Barnes and Noble’s competing format.
In the real world, we don’t have this problem because all books come in the same, nonproprietary format: words printed on paper. I can buy a book the Friends of the Library’s book sale and take go read it in the nice chairs at Barnes and Noble, or I can buy a book at Title Wave here in Anchorage and sell it on the Amazon used-book market when I’m done.
We could have that kind of flexibility in eBooks too, except that the publishers don’t want us too. So they put their books in formats that provide DRM (digital rights management) or copy protection. They don’t want you to be able to make copies of your books. That’s why the Kindle app on your computer can search (yay!) but can’t cut and paste even the smallest excerpt of a book.
The publishers are terrified that, if they sell you an eBook in an open format, you’ll make copies of it for all your friends.
Now, from the world of digital music, we have abundant evidence that there isn’t much market for pirated works when the variety and price of legitimate works is low enough. When CDs used to cost $17, people ripped them and passed USB drives full of MP3s around the dorm. But when you can buy the one song on the CD that you actually want, and it plays on all kinds of players, and it only costs a buck, most people are okay with just buying it.
For that matter, there’s evidence from the world of paper-and-ink books that people don’t make bootleg copies unless either the price (think: college textbooks) or the variety (think: out of print books) is a problem.
So the publishers could solve the problem immediately by offering their books through Barnes and Noble and Apple in an open format unencumbered with DRM. People would switch readers, and Amazon would have to provide support for the open format. That’s what Charlie Stross says, and he’s right.
But the publishing-industry dinosaurs are too stupid and greedy to act in their own best interest. That’s what John Gruber—who has been following on this, and whose links were my entry point into this controversy—says, and Gruber’s right, too.
But…there is no “but.” This is a problem the publishers made and they can unmake it whenever they want. In the meantime, they need to play by the rules.
God knows it would be easy enough for the publishers to get the rules changed: Congre$$ is alway$ ready to hop into bed with their old-media sugar-daddies and impose ever more restrictive imaginary property regimes, First Amendment be damned. Publishers could buy legislation that makes a mess of eBooks as readily as broadcasters did screwed up video.
We’re asked to look the other way while publishers collude to keep prices artificially high and the user experience and versatility low. We have to do that, you see, or Amazon might do to publishing what Steve Jobs did to the music business: drag it, kicking and squealing, into the 21st century.
April 17th, 2012 — Technology
The update I applied seems to make the Kindle a bit more responsive. Some of the books—but not all—seem to have better typography (e.g., they have curly “smart” quotes rather than straight "dumb" ones). So I’d say the update was worth the effort to download and install, but nothing spectacular. Ultimately, when you have an iPhone (or an iPad) then the user experience of a Kindle is going to be pretty “meh” no matter what.
April 13th, 2012 — Books, Technology
I got a Kindle Touch for my birthday last year, although it didn’t arrive until around Thanksgiving. It has been something of a disappointment. My one child got a Barnes & Noble Nook about the same time, and it is by far the better product. (I’m not alone in that assessment.) (While I’m sure about the Nook, I’m not sure about Barnes & Noble. I chose the Amazon product to access the Amazon market. If ebook readers used a common industry-wide format, the Nook would be a no-brainer.)
Anyway, the Kindle Touch is a few grams too heavy to be comfortable, and the user interface is … well, there’s no way to sugarcoat this: it stinks. You never know where to press because sometimes you press in the invisible right-hand zone to move forward. Sometimes you “flick” things up from the bottom. To go forward you tap the right side. To go backward you flick the left. And so on.
But I see there is a new firmware update for the Touch. I don’t know if it’s any good, but it can hardly be any worse. I’m installing it as I type this. I’ll let you know how it works out.
November 17th, 2011 — Books, Shopping, Technology, Typing
Well, I won’t get my Kindle Touch until Monday, but at least now that the Fire reviews have all posted, people are beginning to talk about the Touch:
Awkward delays arise, and repainting of the e-Ink screen sometimes lags. But, overall, the experience is quite good and, in some situations, noticeably better than using the previous iteration’s buttons. This is especially true of picking items from lists or selecting text in specific areas of the screen—touch, even on a screen that isn’t especially responsive, is simply much faster than navigating via repeated button presses.
Also this: “But if your focus is on reading, I would actually recommend the bottom of the line model. It’s lighter and more comfortable to hold in one hand, and the touch screen doesn’t really make the page turning experience that much better.”
November 16th, 2011 — Books, Shopping, Technology
So I got a new Kindle Touch for my birthday last month. Except I didn’t actually get it. I just got a promise it would eventually arrive someday Real Soon Now.
That’s okay. I can cope with delayed gratification. Except when suddenly everybody and their uncle is posting reviews of the Kindle Fire. Now I demand to know why the more exotic Kindles shipped before mine!