<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_30_1341235</id>
	<title>Amazon Pulls Book Publisher's Listings; Ebook Wars Underway?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264864200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>As of last night, Amazon <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2010/01/29/macmillan-amazon-ipad/">stopped listing all books from Macmillan Publishers</a>, referring searches to other sellers instead. According to the New York Times, this is because Macmillan is one of the companies that now has an agreement to sell ebooks through Apple's new iBooks store, and <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/amazon-pulls-macmillan-books-over-e-book-price-disagreement/">asked Amazon to raise the price of their ebooks</a> from $9.99 to $15. An industry source told the Times that the de-listing is Amazon's way of "expressing its strong disagreement" with the idea of a price hike. Gizmodo suggests this is <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5460203/the-apple+amazon-ebook-war-begins-amazon-deletes-macmillan-books">the first volley in an Apple-Amazon ebook war</a>. Quoting: "It feels like a repeat of the same s*** Universal Music, and later, NBC Universal pulled with iTunes, trying to counter the leverage Apple had because of iTunes' insane marketshare. Same situation here, really: Content provider wants more money/control over their content, fights with the overwhelmingly dominant, embedded service that's selling the content. Last time, everybody compromised and walked away mostly happy: Universal and NBC got more flexible pricing, iTunes got DRM-free music and more TV shows for its catalog to sell. ... The difference in this fight is that Macmillan is one of the publishers signed to deliver books for Apple's iBooks store. They have somewhere to run. And credibly. That wasn't really the case with record labels, who tried to fuel alternatives to dilute iTunes power, and failed."</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of last night , Amazon stopped listing all books from Macmillan Publishers , referring searches to other sellers instead .
According to the New York Times , this is because Macmillan is one of the companies that now has an agreement to sell ebooks through Apple 's new iBooks store , and asked Amazon to raise the price of their ebooks from $ 9.99 to $ 15 .
An industry source told the Times that the de-listing is Amazon 's way of " expressing its strong disagreement " with the idea of a price hike .
Gizmodo suggests this is the first volley in an Apple-Amazon ebook war .
Quoting : " It feels like a repeat of the same s * * * Universal Music , and later , NBC Universal pulled with iTunes , trying to counter the leverage Apple had because of iTunes ' insane marketshare .
Same situation here , really : Content provider wants more money/control over their content , fights with the overwhelmingly dominant , embedded service that 's selling the content .
Last time , everybody compromised and walked away mostly happy : Universal and NBC got more flexible pricing , iTunes got DRM-free music and more TV shows for its catalog to sell .
... The difference in this fight is that Macmillan is one of the publishers signed to deliver books for Apple 's iBooks store .
They have somewhere to run .
And credibly .
That was n't really the case with record labels , who tried to fuel alternatives to dilute iTunes power , and failed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of last night, Amazon stopped listing all books from Macmillan Publishers, referring searches to other sellers instead.
According to the New York Times, this is because Macmillan is one of the companies that now has an agreement to sell ebooks through Apple's new iBooks store, and asked Amazon to raise the price of their ebooks from $9.99 to $15.
An industry source told the Times that the de-listing is Amazon's way of "expressing its strong disagreement" with the idea of a price hike.
Gizmodo suggests this is the first volley in an Apple-Amazon ebook war.
Quoting: "It feels like a repeat of the same s*** Universal Music, and later, NBC Universal pulled with iTunes, trying to counter the leverage Apple had because of iTunes' insane marketshare.
Same situation here, really: Content provider wants more money/control over their content, fights with the overwhelmingly dominant, embedded service that's selling the content.
Last time, everybody compromised and walked away mostly happy: Universal and NBC got more flexible pricing, iTunes got DRM-free music and more TV shows for its catalog to sell.
... The difference in this fight is that Macmillan is one of the publishers signed to deliver books for Apple's iBooks store.
They have somewhere to run.
And credibly.
That wasn't really the case with record labels, who tried to fuel alternatives to dilute iTunes power, and failed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962650</id>
	<title>As compared to the iTunes skirmishes</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264870620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting.  I'm curious how this will play out relative to the iTunes defection.</p><p>I expect Apple to:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1.  outsell Kindle with iPad<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2.  be stubborn about pricing (look at iTunes history)</p><p>The fact that Apple is not the first big mover makes this interesting, as it will be years (if ever) until they'll have the same market power in books as they did after a year of the iTunes Music Store.</p><p>With iTunes it was, from the consumer's perspective, a benevolent hegemony.  With books the price pressure from Apple is upwards, and Amazon is holding the line.  Though they're differentiated products - kindle is B&amp;W e-ink, iPad is color backlit LCD.</p><p>From a strategy perspective, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.</p><p>Probably won't hurt book publishers in the same way as music labels - book sales will not degrade into chapter sales in the same way that album sales degraded into single track sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
I 'm curious how this will play out relative to the iTunes defection.I expect Apple to :     1. outsell Kindle with iPad     2. be stubborn about pricing ( look at iTunes history ) The fact that Apple is not the first big mover makes this interesting , as it will be years ( if ever ) until they 'll have the same market power in books as they did after a year of the iTunes Music Store.With iTunes it was , from the consumer 's perspective , a benevolent hegemony .
With books the price pressure from Apple is upwards , and Amazon is holding the line .
Though they 're differentiated products - kindle is B&amp;W e-ink , iPad is color backlit LCD.From a strategy perspective , it will be interesting to see how this plays out.Probably wo n't hurt book publishers in the same way as music labels - book sales will not degrade into chapter sales in the same way that album sales degraded into single track sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
I'm curious how this will play out relative to the iTunes defection.I expect Apple to:
    1.  outsell Kindle with iPad
    2.  be stubborn about pricing (look at iTunes history)The fact that Apple is not the first big mover makes this interesting, as it will be years (if ever) until they'll have the same market power in books as they did after a year of the iTunes Music Store.With iTunes it was, from the consumer's perspective, a benevolent hegemony.
With books the price pressure from Apple is upwards, and Amazon is holding the line.
Though they're differentiated products - kindle is B&amp;W e-ink, iPad is color backlit LCD.From a strategy perspective, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.Probably won't hurt book publishers in the same way as music labels - book sales will not degrade into chapter sales in the same way that album sales degraded into single track sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964200</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why people buy this c</title>
	<author>richmaine</author>
	<datestamp>1264879800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with real books?</p></div><p>Here we have yet another example of "I don't have an interest in a product, so obviously anyone who does must be stupid." Since several million people (myself included) were interested enough in a Kindle to pay several hundred dollars for one and you don't understand why, that obviously means all those people must be stupid. Indeed, whenever *YOU* don't understand something, that means someone *ELSE* must be stupid. Yep.</p><p>I have a personal library of several thousand books and I designed my custom-built house specifically to have a library room.</p><p>I also bought a Kindle and am very pleased with it. I bought it before going on a 2-week cruise last summer. If you can't think of what is wrong with lugging several dozen "real books" along with you on a trip, then I don't think I'm up to educating you. I worked pretty hard to keep my luggage down to something that was practical to lug through, for example, the London underground. It wouldn't have taken very many books to blow that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with real books ? Here we have yet another example of " I do n't have an interest in a product , so obviously anyone who does must be stupid .
" Since several million people ( myself included ) were interested enough in a Kindle to pay several hundred dollars for one and you do n't understand why , that obviously means all those people must be stupid .
Indeed , whenever * YOU * do n't understand something , that means someone * ELSE * must be stupid .
Yep.I have a personal library of several thousand books and I designed my custom-built house specifically to have a library room.I also bought a Kindle and am very pleased with it .
I bought it before going on a 2-week cruise last summer .
If you ca n't think of what is wrong with lugging several dozen " real books " along with you on a trip , then I do n't think I 'm up to educating you .
I worked pretty hard to keep my luggage down to something that was practical to lug through , for example , the London underground .
It would n't have taken very many books to blow that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with real books?Here we have yet another example of "I don't have an interest in a product, so obviously anyone who does must be stupid.
" Since several million people (myself included) were interested enough in a Kindle to pay several hundred dollars for one and you don't understand why, that obviously means all those people must be stupid.
Indeed, whenever *YOU* don't understand something, that means someone *ELSE* must be stupid.
Yep.I have a personal library of several thousand books and I designed my custom-built house specifically to have a library room.I also bought a Kindle and am very pleased with it.
I bought it before going on a 2-week cruise last summer.
If you can't think of what is wrong with lugging several dozen "real books" along with you on a trip, then I don't think I'm up to educating you.
I worked pretty hard to keep my luggage down to something that was practical to lug through, for example, the London underground.
It wouldn't have taken very many books to blow that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963106</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to me...</title>
	<author>louzerr</author>
	<datestamp>1264873740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, what law requires Amazon to sell anyone's books?</p><p>Can you have a  "wholesale" price eBook?  I think you're kind of missing the point of "wholesale" here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they don't need to buy and warehouse 10,000,000 eBooks, so where's the wholesale price break?</p><p>I don't think anything "illegal" is going on here.  But it's the ethics of selling an item for one price to one retailer, and a higher price to another retailer.  Why in the world wouldn't the retailer on the loosing side of this have the right to fight back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , what law requires Amazon to sell anyone 's books ? Can you have a " wholesale " price eBook ?
I think you 're kind of missing the point of " wholesale " here ... they do n't need to buy and warehouse 10,000,000 eBooks , so where 's the wholesale price break ? I do n't think anything " illegal " is going on here .
But it 's the ethics of selling an item for one price to one retailer , and a higher price to another retailer .
Why in the world would n't the retailer on the loosing side of this have the right to fight back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, what law requires Amazon to sell anyone's books?Can you have a  "wholesale" price eBook?
I think you're kind of missing the point of "wholesale" here ... they don't need to buy and warehouse 10,000,000 eBooks, so where's the wholesale price break?I don't think anything "illegal" is going on here.
But it's the ethics of selling an item for one price to one retailer, and a higher price to another retailer.
Why in the world wouldn't the retailer on the loosing side of this have the right to fight back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30967320</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264862340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"since they're higher resolution and in color."</p><p>No and no.  But 1+1=2.</p><p>While the Kindle devices lack color as they are all greyscale, the Kindle PC application does color quite well.  I suppose you are talking devices only, but the Kindle concept does run on your PC.  I don't own an iphone or itouch or whatever but I'd imagine the Kindle app supports color too.</p><p>I've bought manga from the Kindle store, and the color pages (title, usually intro and closing images) are fine on my PC.</p><p>Even your resolution comment is wrong.  My DX is 1200 x 824.  The ipad is 1024x768.  Of course, greyscale doesn't compare to color, but please don't make it sound like Amazon is pushing all crappy tech.  Their hardware is quite well made, it's their software developers that need to get off their asses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" since they 're higher resolution and in color .
" No and no .
But 1 + 1 = 2.While the Kindle devices lack color as they are all greyscale , the Kindle PC application does color quite well .
I suppose you are talking devices only , but the Kindle concept does run on your PC .
I do n't own an iphone or itouch or whatever but I 'd imagine the Kindle app supports color too.I 've bought manga from the Kindle store , and the color pages ( title , usually intro and closing images ) are fine on my PC.Even your resolution comment is wrong .
My DX is 1200 x 824 .
The ipad is 1024x768 .
Of course , greyscale does n't compare to color , but please do n't make it sound like Amazon is pushing all crappy tech .
Their hardware is quite well made , it 's their software developers that need to get off their asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"since they're higher resolution and in color.
"No and no.
But 1+1=2.While the Kindle devices lack color as they are all greyscale, the Kindle PC application does color quite well.
I suppose you are talking devices only, but the Kindle concept does run on your PC.
I don't own an iphone or itouch or whatever but I'd imagine the Kindle app supports color too.I've bought manga from the Kindle store, and the color pages (title, usually intro and closing images) are fine on my PC.Even your resolution comment is wrong.
My DX is 1200 x 824.
The ipad is 1024x768.
Of course, greyscale doesn't compare to color, but please don't make it sound like Amazon is pushing all crappy tech.
Their hardware is quite well made, it's their software developers that need to get off their asses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962664</id>
	<title>Purchase the Dead Tree Version</title>
	<author>n0dna</author>
	<datestamp>1264870680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until all of this crap blows over and the industry pulls its collective head out of its collective ass I'll continue to do it the way I have for years now...</p><p>Buy the dead tree version so the author gets paid and then download the ebook from a torrent site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until all of this crap blows over and the industry pulls its collective head out of its collective ass I 'll continue to do it the way I have for years now...Buy the dead tree version so the author gets paid and then download the ebook from a torrent site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until all of this crap blows over and the industry pulls its collective head out of its collective ass I'll continue to do it the way I have for years now...Buy the dead tree version so the author gets paid and then download the ebook from a torrent site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963530</id>
	<title>Amazon stopped selling ALL Macmillan? Even print?</title>
	<author>Spittoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264876020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I can tell, Apple's iBooks store is electronic only. So the claim, regarding Macmillan, that "They have somewhere to run. And credibly." is not true. <p>

Where is Macmillan going to make up the revenue from sales of print books that they'll forfeit by not being on the Amazon store? Unless the third-party sellers are expected to make up the difference, in which case Amazon's move hasn't accomplished anything punitive at all and is an empty gesture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , Apple 's iBooks store is electronic only .
So the claim , regarding Macmillan , that " They have somewhere to run .
And credibly .
" is not true .
Where is Macmillan going to make up the revenue from sales of print books that they 'll forfeit by not being on the Amazon store ?
Unless the third-party sellers are expected to make up the difference , in which case Amazon 's move has n't accomplished anything punitive at all and is an empty gesture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, Apple's iBooks store is electronic only.
So the claim, regarding Macmillan, that "They have somewhere to run.
And credibly.
" is not true.
Where is Macmillan going to make up the revenue from sales of print books that they'll forfeit by not being on the Amazon store?
Unless the third-party sellers are expected to make up the difference, in which case Amazon's move hasn't accomplished anything punitive at all and is an empty gesture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965948</id>
	<title>Re:Macmillan already lost at least 1 customer</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1264850100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not Macmillan who have pulled the books - it's Amazon. They've done this to publishers before when they thought price negotiations weren't going the way they wanted, and they'll do it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Macmillan who have pulled the books - it 's Amazon .
They 've done this to publishers before when they thought price negotiations were n't going the way they wanted , and they 'll do it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Macmillan who have pulled the books - it's Amazon.
They've done this to publishers before when they thought price negotiations weren't going the way they wanted, and they'll do it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962770</id>
	<title>How far does this go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how far Amazon will take this?  Since the retail book industry is essentially consignment sales, does Amazon have the option to return all Macmillian books in inventory as unsold?  What about pre-orders for unreleased books?  Now Macmillian  is owned by Simon and Schuster which is a division of CBS.</p><p>Will Amazon expand their conflict to all Simon and Schuster Titles?</p><p>Maybe stop selling CBS and Viacom products as well.  (DVD and CD's)?</p><p>This could get real interesting, real fast.  FYI:  Amazon stock closed at $125 friday, CBS at $12.93</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how far Amazon will take this ?
Since the retail book industry is essentially consignment sales , does Amazon have the option to return all Macmillian books in inventory as unsold ?
What about pre-orders for unreleased books ?
Now Macmillian is owned by Simon and Schuster which is a division of CBS.Will Amazon expand their conflict to all Simon and Schuster Titles ? Maybe stop selling CBS and Viacom products as well .
( DVD and CD 's ) ? This could get real interesting , real fast .
FYI : Amazon stock closed at $ 125 friday , CBS at $ 12.93</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how far Amazon will take this?
Since the retail book industry is essentially consignment sales, does Amazon have the option to return all Macmillian books in inventory as unsold?
What about pre-orders for unreleased books?
Now Macmillian  is owned by Simon and Schuster which is a division of CBS.Will Amazon expand their conflict to all Simon and Schuster Titles?Maybe stop selling CBS and Viacom products as well.
(DVD and CD's)?This could get real interesting, real fast.
FYI:  Amazon stock closed at $125 friday, CBS at $12.93</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965092</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad v. paper</title>
	<author>jimfrost</author>
	<datestamp>1264843200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I compared physical to e-book prices on all my purchases in 2008 and 2009 and found that my average book price was a little over $6 less than paper.  Typical softcover prices are $4-5 for back-catalog stuff, and $7-8 for current, which compares to $7-13 paper.  Hardcover/recent release prices are dramatically better: $9-12 e-book (they haven't all be $9.99 in more than a year), $18-22 in paper.  And classics are dirt cheap: As little as $0 from the likes of Project Gutenberg, but nicely typeset versions are $2-3.  Good luck finding a classic in paper for less than $7 unless it's used.<p>

This is not universally the case, of course; some of the books were about equally priced, excluding shipping, but of course there is always shipping.  (I use Amazon Prime, so the shipping is not easy to calculate, but it's there.)

I am a  heavy reader -- 2 to 3 books a week.  Over the first two years of Kindle ownership I saved more than $1200 versus paper if I'd purchased paper from Amazon.  This is actual savings, not made up, I added them up in a spreadsheet in a fit of pique while arguing about e-book futures with someone.  But really the savings were much greater: Many of my book buys are impulse, and that means I used to hit bookstores a lot and pay retail prices, especially for recent releases.  (As an aside I lament the fact that e-books are the final nail in the coffin of local booksellers.  I hate that, although I love having huge catalogs available all the time.)</p><p>

Of course the readers ate into that a lot; $400 for the first one, $360 for the Kindle2 (because, what the heck, I saved more than that the first year anyway and my daughter can use the old one), and $200 for a refurb Kindle2 after I drove away with the first one on the trunk of my car (this when the readers were still $360).  As of last summer I was really only about break-even, but of course every month I go without buying another reader is like another $50 so I'm well up again at this point (plus my daughter's books are cheaper too).</p><p>

Now, those are all new book purchases, as is my norm.  If you're one of those people who hits used bookstores or libraries the economics completely fall apart, although they are getting better as the reader prices drop.</p><p>

Going forward the economics should only get better.</p><p>

Dropping prices for e-ink readers are one reason I think the Kindle et al are pretty safe from the iPad.  Most of the book readers I know weren't keen on spending $400 for a reader when the Kindle came out, though by last Christmas, at $260, <i>many</i> more made the jump.  I think it's a safe bet that you'll see Kindle2-class readers for under $200 by the end of the year, and probably around $120 by the end of next year.  It's going to be very hard for the iPad to compete on price.  It's a different class of device, so perhaps it will do well anyway, but it isn't going to be mass-market in the way e-book readers are quickly becoming.</p><p>

Personally I look forward to the competition in e-readers.  The more of them that are out there the more competition from retailers and the stronger the incentive to standardize on one book format.  (I bet we don't see DRM disappear entirely, for lots of reasons.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I compared physical to e-book prices on all my purchases in 2008 and 2009 and found that my average book price was a little over $ 6 less than paper .
Typical softcover prices are $ 4-5 for back-catalog stuff , and $ 7-8 for current , which compares to $ 7-13 paper .
Hardcover/recent release prices are dramatically better : $ 9-12 e-book ( they have n't all be $ 9.99 in more than a year ) , $ 18-22 in paper .
And classics are dirt cheap : As little as $ 0 from the likes of Project Gutenberg , but nicely typeset versions are $ 2-3 .
Good luck finding a classic in paper for less than $ 7 unless it 's used .
This is not universally the case , of course ; some of the books were about equally priced , excluding shipping , but of course there is always shipping .
( I use Amazon Prime , so the shipping is not easy to calculate , but it 's there .
) I am a heavy reader -- 2 to 3 books a week .
Over the first two years of Kindle ownership I saved more than $ 1200 versus paper if I 'd purchased paper from Amazon .
This is actual savings , not made up , I added them up in a spreadsheet in a fit of pique while arguing about e-book futures with someone .
But really the savings were much greater : Many of my book buys are impulse , and that means I used to hit bookstores a lot and pay retail prices , especially for recent releases .
( As an aside I lament the fact that e-books are the final nail in the coffin of local booksellers .
I hate that , although I love having huge catalogs available all the time .
) Of course the readers ate into that a lot ; $ 400 for the first one , $ 360 for the Kindle2 ( because , what the heck , I saved more than that the first year anyway and my daughter can use the old one ) , and $ 200 for a refurb Kindle2 after I drove away with the first one on the trunk of my car ( this when the readers were still $ 360 ) .
As of last summer I was really only about break-even , but of course every month I go without buying another reader is like another $ 50 so I 'm well up again at this point ( plus my daughter 's books are cheaper too ) .
Now , those are all new book purchases , as is my norm .
If you 're one of those people who hits used bookstores or libraries the economics completely fall apart , although they are getting better as the reader prices drop .
Going forward the economics should only get better .
Dropping prices for e-ink readers are one reason I think the Kindle et al are pretty safe from the iPad .
Most of the book readers I know were n't keen on spending $ 400 for a reader when the Kindle came out , though by last Christmas , at $ 260 , many more made the jump .
I think it 's a safe bet that you 'll see Kindle2-class readers for under $ 200 by the end of the year , and probably around $ 120 by the end of next year .
It 's going to be very hard for the iPad to compete on price .
It 's a different class of device , so perhaps it will do well anyway , but it is n't going to be mass-market in the way e-book readers are quickly becoming .
Personally I look forward to the competition in e-readers .
The more of them that are out there the more competition from retailers and the stronger the incentive to standardize on one book format .
( I bet we do n't see DRM disappear entirely , for lots of reasons .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I compared physical to e-book prices on all my purchases in 2008 and 2009 and found that my average book price was a little over $6 less than paper.
Typical softcover prices are $4-5 for back-catalog stuff, and $7-8 for current, which compares to $7-13 paper.
Hardcover/recent release prices are dramatically better: $9-12 e-book (they haven't all be $9.99 in more than a year), $18-22 in paper.
And classics are dirt cheap: As little as $0 from the likes of Project Gutenberg, but nicely typeset versions are $2-3.
Good luck finding a classic in paper for less than $7 unless it's used.
This is not universally the case, of course; some of the books were about equally priced, excluding shipping, but of course there is always shipping.
(I use Amazon Prime, so the shipping is not easy to calculate, but it's there.
)

I am a  heavy reader -- 2 to 3 books a week.
Over the first two years of Kindle ownership I saved more than $1200 versus paper if I'd purchased paper from Amazon.
This is actual savings, not made up, I added them up in a spreadsheet in a fit of pique while arguing about e-book futures with someone.
But really the savings were much greater: Many of my book buys are impulse, and that means I used to hit bookstores a lot and pay retail prices, especially for recent releases.
(As an aside I lament the fact that e-books are the final nail in the coffin of local booksellers.
I hate that, although I love having huge catalogs available all the time.
)

Of course the readers ate into that a lot; $400 for the first one, $360 for the Kindle2 (because, what the heck, I saved more than that the first year anyway and my daughter can use the old one), and $200 for a refurb Kindle2 after I drove away with the first one on the trunk of my car (this when the readers were still $360).
As of last summer I was really only about break-even, but of course every month I go without buying another reader is like another $50 so I'm well up again at this point (plus my daughter's books are cheaper too).
Now, those are all new book purchases, as is my norm.
If you're one of those people who hits used bookstores or libraries the economics completely fall apart, although they are getting better as the reader prices drop.
Going forward the economics should only get better.
Dropping prices for e-ink readers are one reason I think the Kindle et al are pretty safe from the iPad.
Most of the book readers I know weren't keen on spending $400 for a reader when the Kindle came out, though by last Christmas, at $260, many more made the jump.
I think it's a safe bet that you'll see Kindle2-class readers for under $200 by the end of the year, and probably around $120 by the end of next year.
It's going to be very hard for the iPad to compete on price.
It's a different class of device, so perhaps it will do well anyway, but it isn't going to be mass-market in the way e-book readers are quickly becoming.
Personally I look forward to the competition in e-readers.
The more of them that are out there the more competition from retailers and the stronger the incentive to standardize on one book format.
(I bet we don't see DRM disappear entirely, for lots of reasons.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964256</id>
	<title>Re:A paperback is 7 bucks</title>
	<author>flydpnkrtn</author>
	<datestamp>1264880280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over coffee at work a few of us were discussing the same thing, and came to the same conclusion you did. One of the developers pointed out also that there's something to be said about having a "study" with a "library" of your own... you don't get that same effect with an ebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over coffee at work a few of us were discussing the same thing , and came to the same conclusion you did .
One of the developers pointed out also that there 's something to be said about having a " study " with a " library " of your own... you do n't get that same effect with an ebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over coffee at work a few of us were discussing the same thing, and came to the same conclusion you did.
One of the developers pointed out also that there's something to be said about having a "study" with a "library" of your own... you don't get that same effect with an ebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30968098</id>
	<title>Re:Macmillan already lost at least 1 customer</title>
	<author>Basilius</author>
	<datestamp>1264872960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since Amazon say 60\% of their book sales are Kindle, I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.</p></div><p>This number has been widely mis-interpreted. Amazon didn't say 60\% of their sales are Kindle books. What they said was for books that have Kindle editions (in total) they sell 6 Kindle books for every 10 paper books. That's actually 37.5\%, not 60\%.</p><p>I believe that stat was intentionally published in a misleading manner to generate exactly the misinterpretation you've made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Amazon say 60 \ % of their book sales are Kindle , I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.This number has been widely mis-interpreted .
Amazon did n't say 60 \ % of their sales are Kindle books .
What they said was for books that have Kindle editions ( in total ) they sell 6 Kindle books for every 10 paper books .
That 's actually 37.5 \ % , not 60 \ % .I believe that stat was intentionally published in a misleading manner to generate exactly the misinterpretation you 've made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Amazon say 60\% of their book sales are Kindle, I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.This number has been widely mis-interpreted.
Amazon didn't say 60\% of their sales are Kindle books.
What they said was for books that have Kindle editions (in total) they sell 6 Kindle books for every 10 paper books.
That's actually 37.5\%, not 60\%.I believe that stat was intentionally published in a misleading manner to generate exactly the misinterpretation you've made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30974412</id>
	<title>The ebooks problem is high price. So they raise it</title>
	<author>GuerreroDelInterfaz</author>
	<datestamp>1264936140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can we get the bright publishing industry captains to understand that an ebook *must* cost less than books made of dead trees if they want to get to mass public? When they're going to learn that nobody pays more for less (except the filthy rich like themselves maybe)?</p><p>The reason why ebooks are not popular is that they are more expensive than paperbacks. Until ebooks get less expensive than paperback, if will stay a thing for early adopters and geeks like me. And I only buy e-books that are cheaper than their paperback because I'm not dumb and don't want to pay for the next luxuries of fat executives.</p><p>Seem that all publishers are the same: music, film, books, whatever... Do they learn to think?</p><p>--<br>El Guerrero del Interfaz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can we get the bright publishing industry captains to understand that an ebook * must * cost less than books made of dead trees if they want to get to mass public ?
When they 're going to learn that nobody pays more for less ( except the filthy rich like themselves maybe ) ? The reason why ebooks are not popular is that they are more expensive than paperbacks .
Until ebooks get less expensive than paperback , if will stay a thing for early adopters and geeks like me .
And I only buy e-books that are cheaper than their paperback because I 'm not dumb and do n't want to pay for the next luxuries of fat executives.Seem that all publishers are the same : music , film , books , whatever... Do they learn to think ? --El Guerrero del Interfaz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can we get the bright publishing industry captains to understand that an ebook *must* cost less than books made of dead trees if they want to get to mass public?
When they're going to learn that nobody pays more for less (except the filthy rich like themselves maybe)?The reason why ebooks are not popular is that they are more expensive than paperbacks.
Until ebooks get less expensive than paperback, if will stay a thing for early adopters and geeks like me.
And I only buy e-books that are cheaper than their paperback because I'm not dumb and don't want to pay for the next luxuries of fat executives.Seem that all publishers are the same: music, film, books, whatever... Do they learn to think?--El Guerrero del Interfaz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966350</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1264853640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am of the opinion that in the future, the 20th and most of the 19th centuries are going to appear to surviving generations as something of a "dark age". Since publishers started using woodchips to provide the requisite fibre to make paper in about the 1820s, residual acids in the paper have had a destructive effect on the paper. While some quality publications still appear on rag or otherwise stabilised or buffered paper, much has simply disintegrated.</p><p>The trouble is, although printers must be aware of the problem, they don't seem to be doing anything about it. I have many texts from the 1980s which are in very poor shape, which is bad enough. But what has disappointed me more is that a number of books I have bought *new* in the last year are already showing signs of serious foxing.</p></div><p>Foxing? I am not sure that means what you think it means: foxing is not caused by paper acidity. It is caused by traces of iron, courtesy of the printing mechanism or the ink itself. These traces make it possible to certain fungi to grow in the paper.</p><p>What you see on your more recent books, which are printed on acid-containing paper, is <b>not foxing.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am of the opinion that in the future , the 20th and most of the 19th centuries are going to appear to surviving generations as something of a " dark age " .
Since publishers started using woodchips to provide the requisite fibre to make paper in about the 1820s , residual acids in the paper have had a destructive effect on the paper .
While some quality publications still appear on rag or otherwise stabilised or buffered paper , much has simply disintegrated.The trouble is , although printers must be aware of the problem , they do n't seem to be doing anything about it .
I have many texts from the 1980s which are in very poor shape , which is bad enough .
But what has disappointed me more is that a number of books I have bought * new * in the last year are already showing signs of serious foxing.Foxing ?
I am not sure that means what you think it means : foxing is not caused by paper acidity .
It is caused by traces of iron , courtesy of the printing mechanism or the ink itself .
These traces make it possible to certain fungi to grow in the paper.What you see on your more recent books , which are printed on acid-containing paper , is not foxing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am of the opinion that in the future, the 20th and most of the 19th centuries are going to appear to surviving generations as something of a "dark age".
Since publishers started using woodchips to provide the requisite fibre to make paper in about the 1820s, residual acids in the paper have had a destructive effect on the paper.
While some quality publications still appear on rag or otherwise stabilised or buffered paper, much has simply disintegrated.The trouble is, although printers must be aware of the problem, they don't seem to be doing anything about it.
I have many texts from the 1980s which are in very poor shape, which is bad enough.
But what has disappointed me more is that a number of books I have bought *new* in the last year are already showing signs of serious foxing.Foxing?
I am not sure that means what you think it means: foxing is not caused by paper acidity.
It is caused by traces of iron, courtesy of the printing mechanism or the ink itself.
These traces make it possible to certain fungi to grow in the paper.What you see on your more recent books, which are printed on acid-containing paper, is not foxing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965230</id>
	<title>Re:iPad isn't an ebook reader</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1264844280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really don't understand why people keep trying to shoehorn epaper and netbooks into the same category</p></div></blockquote><p>Why not? They're the same people who uses their waffle iron to make toasts and fried eggs.</p><p>What? People buy separate devices for separate things? That can't be right. It's all about convergence, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand why people keep trying to shoehorn epaper and netbooks into the same categoryWhy not ?
They 're the same people who uses their waffle iron to make toasts and fried eggs.What ?
People buy separate devices for separate things ?
That ca n't be right .
It 's all about convergence , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand why people keep trying to shoehorn epaper and netbooks into the same categoryWhy not?
They're the same people who uses their waffle iron to make toasts and fried eggs.What?
People buy separate devices for separate things?
That can't be right.
It's all about convergence, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966244</id>
	<title>International shipping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264852500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry for any inaccuracies - I don't own a Kindle or anything of the sort (yet), but there's at least one big reason for me to choose it over dead tree: I live in Brazil.</p><p>I love a lot of books that are in English/French, and I've recently had some bad experiences with translations, so "national" versions - when they do exist - are a no-go for me. This leaves me with two options:</p><p>1) Buy the book from a local book store at a sometimes ridiculously inflated price and absurdly long shipping times (2+ months if the book is not very well known) - that is, if they actually have it.<br>or<br>2) Take my chances at importing it from the US/EU/etc and hoping that customs is not on strike yet again (though their usual is not that much better). Stuff that takes 2-6 days to cross the globe to get here can take more than 3-4 months to be cleared (it happened to me <i>several</i> times), and I've read stories about people having to wait 8 months for a freaking pair of snickers.</p><p>Finally, the closest thing my city has to a public library is a building the size of a Burger King, and the nearest city where I might have better chances is 200km away.</p><p>So there. 60 seconds to download a new book? Count me in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry for any inaccuracies - I do n't own a Kindle or anything of the sort ( yet ) , but there 's at least one big reason for me to choose it over dead tree : I live in Brazil.I love a lot of books that are in English/French , and I 've recently had some bad experiences with translations , so " national " versions - when they do exist - are a no-go for me .
This leaves me with two options : 1 ) Buy the book from a local book store at a sometimes ridiculously inflated price and absurdly long shipping times ( 2 + months if the book is not very well known ) - that is , if they actually have it.or2 ) Take my chances at importing it from the US/EU/etc and hoping that customs is not on strike yet again ( though their usual is not that much better ) .
Stuff that takes 2-6 days to cross the globe to get here can take more than 3-4 months to be cleared ( it happened to me several times ) , and I 've read stories about people having to wait 8 months for a freaking pair of snickers.Finally , the closest thing my city has to a public library is a building the size of a Burger King , and the nearest city where I might have better chances is 200km away.So there .
60 seconds to download a new book ?
Count me in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry for any inaccuracies - I don't own a Kindle or anything of the sort (yet), but there's at least one big reason for me to choose it over dead tree: I live in Brazil.I love a lot of books that are in English/French, and I've recently had some bad experiences with translations, so "national" versions - when they do exist - are a no-go for me.
This leaves me with two options:1) Buy the book from a local book store at a sometimes ridiculously inflated price and absurdly long shipping times (2+ months if the book is not very well known) - that is, if they actually have it.or2) Take my chances at importing it from the US/EU/etc and hoping that customs is not on strike yet again (though their usual is not that much better).
Stuff that takes 2-6 days to cross the globe to get here can take more than 3-4 months to be cleared (it happened to me several times), and I've read stories about people having to wait 8 months for a freaking pair of snickers.Finally, the closest thing my city has to a public library is a building the size of a Burger King, and the nearest city where I might have better chances is 200km away.So there.
60 seconds to download a new book?
Count me in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966632</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1264856220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, e-ink readers remain better for reading traditional books. But I think the concept of "books" will start to radically change in the next few years. We'll see more and more multimedia and interactivity, blurring the line between books and... well, everything else! Should be an interesting ride.</p><p>E-ink has been pretty much stagnant for the last few years. Those ultra-thin colour e-ink readers still haven't made it to mass production yet. This will give it the kick in the pants it needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , e-ink readers remain better for reading traditional books .
But I think the concept of " books " will start to radically change in the next few years .
We 'll see more and more multimedia and interactivity , blurring the line between books and... well , everything else !
Should be an interesting ride.E-ink has been pretty much stagnant for the last few years .
Those ultra-thin colour e-ink readers still have n't made it to mass production yet .
This will give it the kick in the pants it needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, e-ink readers remain better for reading traditional books.
But I think the concept of "books" will start to radically change in the next few years.
We'll see more and more multimedia and interactivity, blurring the line between books and... well, everything else!
Should be an interesting ride.E-ink has been pretty much stagnant for the last few years.
Those ultra-thin colour e-ink readers still haven't made it to mass production yet.
This will give it the kick in the pants it needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30977910</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just followed your link, and the Kindle version is now <b>more expensive</b> ($7) than the paperback version (still $5).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just followed your link , and the Kindle version is now more expensive ( $ 7 ) than the paperback version ( still $ 5 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just followed your link, and the Kindle version is now more expensive ($7) than the paperback version (still $5).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964526</id>
	<title>Re:MacMillan</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1264882500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective, I think delisting the paper editions is more of a threat to Amazon: I shop at Amazon because I know whatever I want to buy, they have it.  If that stops being the case, then I'm going to look elsewhere, maybe permanently.  They might be on the right end of this dispute, but I think they're going to damage their brand if they keep this up too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , I think delisting the paper editions is more of a threat to Amazon : I shop at Amazon because I know whatever I want to buy , they have it .
If that stops being the case , then I 'm going to look elsewhere , maybe permanently .
They might be on the right end of this dispute , but I think they 're going to damage their brand if they keep this up too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, I think delisting the paper editions is more of a threat to Amazon: I shop at Amazon because I know whatever I want to buy, they have it.
If that stops being the case, then I'm going to look elsewhere, maybe permanently.
They might be on the right end of this dispute, but I think they're going to damage their brand if they keep this up too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965282</id>
	<title>Karma....</title>
	<author>gwdoiron</author>
	<datestamp>1264844640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that big publishers, who have had last word in the price of the songs/books that they sell, enjoyed being able to set the price of what they purchased the content for and sold the content for.  Here comes newfangled electronic media, and now they are the middlemen and not the end distributors - and it appears they don't like being in the position that they have had authors (/musicians) in all along.

Seems like a heaping dose of karma to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that big publishers , who have had last word in the price of the songs/books that they sell , enjoyed being able to set the price of what they purchased the content for and sold the content for .
Here comes newfangled electronic media , and now they are the middlemen and not the end distributors - and it appears they do n't like being in the position that they have had authors ( /musicians ) in all along .
Seems like a heaping dose of karma to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that big publishers, who have had last word in the price of the songs/books that they sell, enjoyed being able to set the price of what they purchased the content for and sold the content for.
Here comes newfangled electronic media, and now they are the middlemen and not the end distributors - and it appears they don't like being in the position that they have had authors (/musicians) in all along.
Seems like a heaping dose of karma to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963612</id>
	<title>Re:A paperback is 7 bucks</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1264876560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A used paperback is $2.  I don't see any reason to pay more than that.
<p>
The only real issue I have is that $10 for an ebook is unattainably low.  Distribution for the book is pennies.  As the parent say, no printing or distribution costs. No pulping.  A book sells or it does not.
</p><p>
I can see one drawback.  Nowhere to go if a book does not sell.  If all ebooks are 9.99, then is there a mechanism to make the book $5 if it is not selling?  At least that way the publisher might get cover some costs.
</p><p>
As TFA says, MacMillian does not want to sell books for $10, and now does not have to. They can sell through Apple for $15.  This is like if MS had been able to develop a superior audio player, and used it's marketing might to get consumers to pay $1.30 per track. Of course MS did not do this, but Apple does for new tracks.
</p><p>
The question is will people pay $15 for an ebook.  I won't for fiction.  The Kindle app is on the iphone, so it is on the ipad. I can continue to buy kindle books even if I buy an ipad.  The benifit is if a Kindle evolves into a great machine, I can buy on and no lost my investment in books. OTOH, like iTunes Movies, if i buy an iBook, it is useless on anything buy an Apple.  Even with the multimedia included, as a rule I don'tthink iBooks are going to of great value, even if the iPad is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A used paperback is $ 2 .
I do n't see any reason to pay more than that .
The only real issue I have is that $ 10 for an ebook is unattainably low .
Distribution for the book is pennies .
As the parent say , no printing or distribution costs .
No pulping .
A book sells or it does not .
I can see one drawback .
Nowhere to go if a book does not sell .
If all ebooks are 9.99 , then is there a mechanism to make the book $ 5 if it is not selling ?
At least that way the publisher might get cover some costs .
As TFA says , MacMillian does not want to sell books for $ 10 , and now does not have to .
They can sell through Apple for $ 15 .
This is like if MS had been able to develop a superior audio player , and used it 's marketing might to get consumers to pay $ 1.30 per track .
Of course MS did not do this , but Apple does for new tracks .
The question is will people pay $ 15 for an ebook .
I wo n't for fiction .
The Kindle app is on the iphone , so it is on the ipad .
I can continue to buy kindle books even if I buy an ipad .
The benifit is if a Kindle evolves into a great machine , I can buy on and no lost my investment in books .
OTOH , like iTunes Movies , if i buy an iBook , it is useless on anything buy an Apple .
Even with the multimedia included , as a rule I don'tthink iBooks are going to of great value , even if the iPad is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A used paperback is $2.
I don't see any reason to pay more than that.
The only real issue I have is that $10 for an ebook is unattainably low.
Distribution for the book is pennies.
As the parent say, no printing or distribution costs.
No pulping.
A book sells or it does not.
I can see one drawback.
Nowhere to go if a book does not sell.
If all ebooks are 9.99, then is there a mechanism to make the book $5 if it is not selling?
At least that way the publisher might get cover some costs.
As TFA says, MacMillian does not want to sell books for $10, and now does not have to.
They can sell through Apple for $15.
This is like if MS had been able to develop a superior audio player, and used it's marketing might to get consumers to pay $1.30 per track.
Of course MS did not do this, but Apple does for new tracks.
The question is will people pay $15 for an ebook.
I won't for fiction.
The Kindle app is on the iphone, so it is on the ipad.
I can continue to buy kindle books even if I buy an ipad.
The benifit is if a Kindle evolves into a great machine, I can buy on and no lost my investment in books.
OTOH, like iTunes Movies, if i buy an iBook, it is useless on anything buy an Apple.
Even with the multimedia included, as a rule I don'tthink iBooks are going to of great value, even if the iPad is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30969426</id>
	<title>Re:iPad isn't an ebook reader</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>macbook + generic LCD external monitor</p></div><p>Hrrmmph! Actually, many people consider the Mac's high quality monitor as one of its major selling points. And you want to connect your macbook to a <em>generic</em> monitor?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>macbook + generic LCD external monitorHrrmmph !
Actually , many people consider the Mac 's high quality monitor as one of its major selling points .
And you want to connect your macbook to a generic monitor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>macbook + generic LCD external monitorHrrmmph!
Actually, many people consider the Mac's high quality monitor as one of its major selling points.
And you want to connect your macbook to a generic monitor?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963226</id>
	<title>Kudos to Amazon</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1264874400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an avid Kindle reader, I wish Amazon would take more stands like this to lower the prices of their ebooks.  I already don't buy over-priced titles because the publishers just don't get it: I don't have to read their stinking books.  There are millions of other books for me to read.  I'll die wishing I'd read a few more.</p><p>What these publishers don't seem to understand is that my walking into a Barnes &amp; Noble with nothing but a credit card and they supply me with the reader (paper) is vastly different from my going out and spending hundreds of dollars on a reader and then purchasing the content at practically zero distribution cost to them and the retailer.  When I see that a paperback is $5.99 at the store and $5.99 on my Kindle, I hesitate to buy it because I know that there is some cost in paper, printing, binding, storing, shipping, retailing, and selling that paper.  But the cost of digital distribution is practically zero, so that $5.99 is nearly pure profit.  If they just reduced the price to reflect the reduced costs to distribute the content and make the same profit as previously, I'd be quite happy.</p><p>The main reason I purchased the Kindle is because I do a lot of traveling, so I can carry much of my library with me and read whatever I'm in the mood to read without carrying a bag full of books and being in the mood to read the one I left at home on that trip, plus I can buy one that I would never have found in the airport bookstore.  This is why something like the iPad will never work for me.  I also don't like reading while staring at light bulbs, even dim ones called LCD's.  So if the publishers think that Apple is going to be their savior, they're high on crack.  What I've said all along is that most people who actually read books will not be interested in bulky, low battery life dim light bulbs.  But that doesn't mean the iPad won't sell well, which in turn does not mean the iPad will sell a lot of books.</p><p>If Apple thinks the winning strategy to selling books is to offer them at a higher price on a higher priced device, I think they're high on crack.  So far I honestly haven't explored P2P options for getting ebooks, but if the publishers think that if I really want this book that I'm not going to pursue the P2P option when their book is not available for my reader, then they're high on crack, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an avid Kindle reader , I wish Amazon would take more stands like this to lower the prices of their ebooks .
I already do n't buy over-priced titles because the publishers just do n't get it : I do n't have to read their stinking books .
There are millions of other books for me to read .
I 'll die wishing I 'd read a few more.What these publishers do n't seem to understand is that my walking into a Barnes &amp; Noble with nothing but a credit card and they supply me with the reader ( paper ) is vastly different from my going out and spending hundreds of dollars on a reader and then purchasing the content at practically zero distribution cost to them and the retailer .
When I see that a paperback is $ 5.99 at the store and $ 5.99 on my Kindle , I hesitate to buy it because I know that there is some cost in paper , printing , binding , storing , shipping , retailing , and selling that paper .
But the cost of digital distribution is practically zero , so that $ 5.99 is nearly pure profit .
If they just reduced the price to reflect the reduced costs to distribute the content and make the same profit as previously , I 'd be quite happy.The main reason I purchased the Kindle is because I do a lot of traveling , so I can carry much of my library with me and read whatever I 'm in the mood to read without carrying a bag full of books and being in the mood to read the one I left at home on that trip , plus I can buy one that I would never have found in the airport bookstore .
This is why something like the iPad will never work for me .
I also do n't like reading while staring at light bulbs , even dim ones called LCD 's .
So if the publishers think that Apple is going to be their savior , they 're high on crack .
What I 've said all along is that most people who actually read books will not be interested in bulky , low battery life dim light bulbs .
But that does n't mean the iPad wo n't sell well , which in turn does not mean the iPad will sell a lot of books.If Apple thinks the winning strategy to selling books is to offer them at a higher price on a higher priced device , I think they 're high on crack .
So far I honestly have n't explored P2P options for getting ebooks , but if the publishers think that if I really want this book that I 'm not going to pursue the P2P option when their book is not available for my reader , then they 're high on crack , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an avid Kindle reader, I wish Amazon would take more stands like this to lower the prices of their ebooks.
I already don't buy over-priced titles because the publishers just don't get it: I don't have to read their stinking books.
There are millions of other books for me to read.
I'll die wishing I'd read a few more.What these publishers don't seem to understand is that my walking into a Barnes &amp; Noble with nothing but a credit card and they supply me with the reader (paper) is vastly different from my going out and spending hundreds of dollars on a reader and then purchasing the content at practically zero distribution cost to them and the retailer.
When I see that a paperback is $5.99 at the store and $5.99 on my Kindle, I hesitate to buy it because I know that there is some cost in paper, printing, binding, storing, shipping, retailing, and selling that paper.
But the cost of digital distribution is practically zero, so that $5.99 is nearly pure profit.
If they just reduced the price to reflect the reduced costs to distribute the content and make the same profit as previously, I'd be quite happy.The main reason I purchased the Kindle is because I do a lot of traveling, so I can carry much of my library with me and read whatever I'm in the mood to read without carrying a bag full of books and being in the mood to read the one I left at home on that trip, plus I can buy one that I would never have found in the airport bookstore.
This is why something like the iPad will never work for me.
I also don't like reading while staring at light bulbs, even dim ones called LCD's.
So if the publishers think that Apple is going to be their savior, they're high on crack.
What I've said all along is that most people who actually read books will not be interested in bulky, low battery life dim light bulbs.
But that doesn't mean the iPad won't sell well, which in turn does not mean the iPad will sell a lot of books.If Apple thinks the winning strategy to selling books is to offer them at a higher price on a higher priced device, I think they're high on crack.
So far I honestly haven't explored P2P options for getting ebooks, but if the publishers think that if I really want this book that I'm not going to pursue the P2P option when their book is not available for my reader, then they're high on crack, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963062</id>
	<title>Will the real issue please stand up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264873440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the replies, it looks like we're looking at two separate issues -</p><p>
&nbsp; - Kindle vs. iPhone / iPod / iPon / iWhatever</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and</p><p>
&nbsp; - availability of products</p><p>On the first issue, the iPawn (let's just call all the products by that name) is better than the Kindle, hands down; but both devices ultimately suck for reading.  IMHO, digital books can be a good supplement to printed material, but have yet to successfully replace printed material (especially for technical books).</p><p>The second issue is honestly more important to me.  While it's not exactly new (Best Buy, Wal*mart and I'm sure many others demand a lower price from the manufacturer), one critical difference here is you'd be getting the EXACT same product, but the manufacturer would have a preferred retailer, and try their best to force (by price) potential customers to use that retailer over any other.  Serves them right if Amazon dumps them!!!</p><p>These exclusive agreements with distributors go directly against the concept of free market.  Amazon has every right to fight back, and any consumer who is at all concerned with his rights to choose what they buy and where they shop should be telling MacMillan goodbye at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the replies , it looks like we 're looking at two separate issues -   - Kindle vs. iPhone / iPod / iPon / iWhatever         and   - availability of productsOn the first issue , the iPawn ( let 's just call all the products by that name ) is better than the Kindle , hands down ; but both devices ultimately suck for reading .
IMHO , digital books can be a good supplement to printed material , but have yet to successfully replace printed material ( especially for technical books ) .The second issue is honestly more important to me .
While it 's not exactly new ( Best Buy , Wal * mart and I 'm sure many others demand a lower price from the manufacturer ) , one critical difference here is you 'd be getting the EXACT same product , but the manufacturer would have a preferred retailer , and try their best to force ( by price ) potential customers to use that retailer over any other .
Serves them right if Amazon dumps them ! !
! These exclusive agreements with distributors go directly against the concept of free market .
Amazon has every right to fight back , and any consumer who is at all concerned with his rights to choose what they buy and where they shop should be telling MacMillan goodbye at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the replies, it looks like we're looking at two separate issues -
  - Kindle vs. iPhone / iPod / iPon / iWhatever
        and
  - availability of productsOn the first issue, the iPawn (let's just call all the products by that name) is better than the Kindle, hands down; but both devices ultimately suck for reading.
IMHO, digital books can be a good supplement to printed material, but have yet to successfully replace printed material (especially for technical books).The second issue is honestly more important to me.
While it's not exactly new (Best Buy, Wal*mart and I'm sure many others demand a lower price from the manufacturer), one critical difference here is you'd be getting the EXACT same product, but the manufacturer would have a preferred retailer, and try their best to force (by price) potential customers to use that retailer over any other.
Serves them right if Amazon dumps them!!
!These exclusive agreements with distributors go directly against the concept of free market.
Amazon has every right to fight back, and any consumer who is at all concerned with his rights to choose what they buy and where they shop should be telling MacMillan goodbye at this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962584</id>
	<title>Auto industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264870080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For decades Ford would not authorize the creation of a dealership if it were to be owned by a public company. Ford feared losing too much control if one body had say 50 Ford dealers throughout the nation - the body would be able to name it's own prices, make decisions Ford wanted to make, etc. It was inevitable and eventually happened anyway.  Ironically, the Ford/GM/Chrysler stores owned by large publicly traded companies were the ones that survived least scathed from the economic problems faced in 2008 and 2009. It was the small mom and pop shops whose franchises were either terminated or couldn't keep inventory and hold on long enough and closed their doors.<br>History repeats itself a lot, sometimes in a similar way - so Macmillan, you'd better get on the ball and let Apple and Amazon do their thing.<br>And Rupert Murdoch... Shame on you! You'll die a poor, broken old man with nothing but a memory of how you destroyed your empire.</p><p>Disclosure: I work in the Automotive Retailing sector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For decades Ford would not authorize the creation of a dealership if it were to be owned by a public company .
Ford feared losing too much control if one body had say 50 Ford dealers throughout the nation - the body would be able to name it 's own prices , make decisions Ford wanted to make , etc .
It was inevitable and eventually happened anyway .
Ironically , the Ford/GM/Chrysler stores owned by large publicly traded companies were the ones that survived least scathed from the economic problems faced in 2008 and 2009 .
It was the small mom and pop shops whose franchises were either terminated or could n't keep inventory and hold on long enough and closed their doors.History repeats itself a lot , sometimes in a similar way - so Macmillan , you 'd better get on the ball and let Apple and Amazon do their thing.And Rupert Murdoch... Shame on you !
You 'll die a poor , broken old man with nothing but a memory of how you destroyed your empire.Disclosure : I work in the Automotive Retailing sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For decades Ford would not authorize the creation of a dealership if it were to be owned by a public company.
Ford feared losing too much control if one body had say 50 Ford dealers throughout the nation - the body would be able to name it's own prices, make decisions Ford wanted to make, etc.
It was inevitable and eventually happened anyway.
Ironically, the Ford/GM/Chrysler stores owned by large publicly traded companies were the ones that survived least scathed from the economic problems faced in 2008 and 2009.
It was the small mom and pop shops whose franchises were either terminated or couldn't keep inventory and hold on long enough and closed their doors.History repeats itself a lot, sometimes in a similar way - so Macmillan, you'd better get on the ball and let Apple and Amazon do their thing.And Rupert Murdoch... Shame on you!
You'll die a poor, broken old man with nothing but a memory of how you destroyed your empire.Disclosure: I work in the Automotive Retailing sector.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936</id>
	<title>Macmillan already lost at least 1 customer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264872720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My book club picked a book from Tor, which seems to be a Macmillan subdivision. I had sent the preview to my Kindle, and went to buy it yesterday. It was no longer available, so after thinking "WTF?" for a while, I bought a used paperback copy instead.</p><p>Way to go, Macmillan!</p><p>Since Amazon say 60\% of their book sales are Kindle, I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My book club picked a book from Tor , which seems to be a Macmillan subdivision .
I had sent the preview to my Kindle , and went to buy it yesterday .
It was no longer available , so after thinking " WTF ?
" for a while , I bought a used paperback copy instead.Way to go , Macmillan ! Since Amazon say 60 \ % of their book sales are Kindle , I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My book club picked a book from Tor, which seems to be a Macmillan subdivision.
I had sent the preview to my Kindle, and went to buy it yesterday.
It was no longer available, so after thinking "WTF?
" for a while, I bought a used paperback copy instead.Way to go, Macmillan!Since Amazon say 60\% of their book sales are Kindle, I imagine Macmillan are going to be hurting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962880</id>
	<title>Somewhere to run?</title>
	<author>schnablebg</author>
	<datestamp>1264872240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The difference in this fight is that Macmillan is one of the publishers signed to deliver books for Apple's iBooks store. They have somewhere to run. And credibly.</p></div><p>  You mean to a marketplace that doesn't exist yet and a device that is 60 days out with unproven market traction?  Doesn't sound very credible for me; two months of lost sales from your biggest retailer is a pretty big deal for all companies.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference in this fight is that Macmillan is one of the publishers signed to deliver books for Apple 's iBooks store .
They have somewhere to run .
And credibly .
You mean to a marketplace that does n't exist yet and a device that is 60 days out with unproven market traction ?
Does n't sound very credible for me ; two months of lost sales from your biggest retailer is a pretty big deal for all companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference in this fight is that Macmillan is one of the publishers signed to deliver books for Apple's iBooks store.
They have somewhere to run.
And credibly.
You mean to a marketplace that doesn't exist yet and a device that is 60 days out with unproven market traction?
Doesn't sound very credible for me; two months of lost sales from your biggest retailer is a pretty big deal for all companies.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965446</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>jimfrost</author>
	<datestamp>1264845720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of the things that bugs me about the arguments usually raised for paper, too.<p>

People keep arguing that if you loose the e-book reader you lost your whole library, i.e. that e-books are much more ephemeral than paper.  That is baloney for several reasons.</p><p>

First, the ease of copying digital media lends not only to cheap publishing but also to cheap back-up.   Even if I didn't have my own back-ups the publishers I've purchased from allow me to re-download.  Since I bought my first e-book in 1998, I have used eight different devices to read that content.  Devices broke and were replaced but the whole library was retained.  In fact, with the exception of just one book I can read all of that content on today's devices (that one book was in Adobe e-book format, which was both the most locked-down and the worst reading experience I have ever had, and it's not surprising it died an early death).</p><p>

If you've been working with digital media for very long two things become obvious: Popular formats live forever (have any software that can display GIF images, a circa mid 1980s format?  Why yes, you're using one right now) and the ease of copying means you never have to throw anything away.  I have lost many, many photo prints and negatives over the years but I have a copy of every single digital photo I have ever taken, plus many more I collected before I even had a digital camera.  And backups of them all.  And backups of the backups.  And copies of many on various websites.</p><p>

You talk about how the paper just doesn't last that long these days, and it's true, but it's easy to damage them too.  I have had books (in some cases entire libraries) destroyed by bugs, and humidity, and floods, and coffee, and children.  I've had to ditch them in large numbers during moves because they were too heavy and bulky.  Paperback books from twenty-plus years ago practically fall apart in my hands.  Some of those books have been irreplaceable to date, too hard to find even using services like alibris, because they've been out of print so long.</p><p>

You know what digital means?  Digital means "never goes out of print."  And in my mind that is more valuable than any argument against e-books.  After all, if it's digital it can be made into print easily; the opposite is demonstrably not true (Google's efforts notwithstanding).</p><p>

In my mind the only durability argument that holds at all is that in the advent of the total downfall of our civilization paper stands a much better chance than bits.  But even paper wouldn't do very well if, say, we have a large-scale nuclear war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the things that bugs me about the arguments usually raised for paper , too .
People keep arguing that if you loose the e-book reader you lost your whole library , i.e .
that e-books are much more ephemeral than paper .
That is baloney for several reasons .
First , the ease of copying digital media lends not only to cheap publishing but also to cheap back-up .
Even if I did n't have my own back-ups the publishers I 've purchased from allow me to re-download .
Since I bought my first e-book in 1998 , I have used eight different devices to read that content .
Devices broke and were replaced but the whole library was retained .
In fact , with the exception of just one book I can read all of that content on today 's devices ( that one book was in Adobe e-book format , which was both the most locked-down and the worst reading experience I have ever had , and it 's not surprising it died an early death ) .
If you 've been working with digital media for very long two things become obvious : Popular formats live forever ( have any software that can display GIF images , a circa mid 1980s format ?
Why yes , you 're using one right now ) and the ease of copying means you never have to throw anything away .
I have lost many , many photo prints and negatives over the years but I have a copy of every single digital photo I have ever taken , plus many more I collected before I even had a digital camera .
And backups of them all .
And backups of the backups .
And copies of many on various websites .
You talk about how the paper just does n't last that long these days , and it 's true , but it 's easy to damage them too .
I have had books ( in some cases entire libraries ) destroyed by bugs , and humidity , and floods , and coffee , and children .
I 've had to ditch them in large numbers during moves because they were too heavy and bulky .
Paperback books from twenty-plus years ago practically fall apart in my hands .
Some of those books have been irreplaceable to date , too hard to find even using services like alibris , because they 've been out of print so long .
You know what digital means ?
Digital means " never goes out of print .
" And in my mind that is more valuable than any argument against e-books .
After all , if it 's digital it can be made into print easily ; the opposite is demonstrably not true ( Google 's efforts notwithstanding ) .
In my mind the only durability argument that holds at all is that in the advent of the total downfall of our civilization paper stands a much better chance than bits .
But even paper would n't do very well if , say , we have a large-scale nuclear war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the things that bugs me about the arguments usually raised for paper, too.
People keep arguing that if you loose the e-book reader you lost your whole library, i.e.
that e-books are much more ephemeral than paper.
That is baloney for several reasons.
First, the ease of copying digital media lends not only to cheap publishing but also to cheap back-up.
Even if I didn't have my own back-ups the publishers I've purchased from allow me to re-download.
Since I bought my first e-book in 1998, I have used eight different devices to read that content.
Devices broke and were replaced but the whole library was retained.
In fact, with the exception of just one book I can read all of that content on today's devices (that one book was in Adobe e-book format, which was both the most locked-down and the worst reading experience I have ever had, and it's not surprising it died an early death).
If you've been working with digital media for very long two things become obvious: Popular formats live forever (have any software that can display GIF images, a circa mid 1980s format?
Why yes, you're using one right now) and the ease of copying means you never have to throw anything away.
I have lost many, many photo prints and negatives over the years but I have a copy of every single digital photo I have ever taken, plus many more I collected before I even had a digital camera.
And backups of them all.
And backups of the backups.
And copies of many on various websites.
You talk about how the paper just doesn't last that long these days, and it's true, but it's easy to damage them too.
I have had books (in some cases entire libraries) destroyed by bugs, and humidity, and floods, and coffee, and children.
I've had to ditch them in large numbers during moves because they were too heavy and bulky.
Paperback books from twenty-plus years ago practically fall apart in my hands.
Some of those books have been irreplaceable to date, too hard to find even using services like alibris, because they've been out of print so long.
You know what digital means?
Digital means "never goes out of print.
"  And in my mind that is more valuable than any argument against e-books.
After all, if it's digital it can be made into print easily; the opposite is demonstrably not true (Google's efforts notwithstanding).
In my mind the only durability argument that holds at all is that in the advent of the total downfall of our civilization paper stands a much better chance than bits.
But even paper wouldn't do very well if, say, we have a large-scale nuclear war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965856</id>
	<title>Sounds fishy to me</title>
	<author>mrjatsun</author>
	<datestamp>1264849200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been reported that Amazon was giving a 70/30 for exclusive e-publishing<br>rights, and 50/50 if other e-publishers are allow to publish the books. If you switch<br>from 70/30 to 50/50, your price goes from $10 to $15...</p><p>It has also been reported that Apple is giving 70/30 no matter what...  My guess,<br>the publisher wants their $7...  And amazon is switching from $10 to $15 because<br>they aren't exclusive anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been reported that Amazon was giving a 70/30 for exclusive e-publishingrights , and 50/50 if other e-publishers are allow to publish the books .
If you switchfrom 70/30 to 50/50 , your price goes from $ 10 to $ 15...It has also been reported that Apple is giving 70/30 no matter what... My guess,the publisher wants their $ 7... And amazon is switching from $ 10 to $ 15 becausethey are n't exclusive anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been reported that Amazon was giving a 70/30 for exclusive e-publishingrights, and 50/50 if other e-publishers are allow to publish the books.
If you switchfrom 70/30 to 50/50, your price goes from $10 to $15...It has also been reported that Apple is giving 70/30 no matter what...  My guess,the publisher wants their $7...  And amazon is switching from $10 to $15 becausethey aren't exclusive anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964032</id>
	<title>Now wait just a minute!!!</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1264878840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are paying $10 for an eBook???</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are paying $ 10 for an eBook ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are paying $10 for an eBook??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"#<br># Titles are too expensive. Many paperbacks are SAME price delivered 2nd-day UPS to my doorstep (with Prime free shipping). What the fuck? And then more expensive titles are only a few dollars cheaper for the Kindle edition but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree."</p><p>are you sure you're thinking of Amazon? a quick search suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about. perhaps my window's calc is broken, but i'm seeing no less than a 35\% reduction in price for every book i can think to search for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" # # Titles are too expensive .
Many paperbacks are SAME price delivered 2nd-day UPS to my doorstep ( with Prime free shipping ) .
What the fuck ?
And then more expensive titles are only a few dollars cheaper for the Kindle edition but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree .
" are you sure you 're thinking of Amazon ?
a quick search suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about .
perhaps my window 's calc is broken , but i 'm seeing no less than a 35 \ % reduction in price for every book i can think to search for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"## Titles are too expensive.
Many paperbacks are SAME price delivered 2nd-day UPS to my doorstep (with Prime free shipping).
What the fuck?
And then more expensive titles are only a few dollars cheaper for the Kindle edition but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree.
"are you sure you're thinking of Amazon?
a quick search suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about.
perhaps my window's calc is broken, but i'm seeing no less than a 35\% reduction in price for every book i can think to search for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962466</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm oh so certain the omission of LCD screen quality has nothing to do with any possible bias of yours, I would like to remind you that the Kindle has a e-ink screen is much easier on the eyes than an LCD is.  The development of new kinds of e-ink tech (both color and faster refreshing) also gives Amazon a road-map for future screen improvements.  Apple's tablet requirements mean they will be stuck with LCD for the foreseeable future.  OLED would solve their problems I imagine, but it will be years before 10 inch OLEDs are affordable enough for mass market adoption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm oh so certain the omission of LCD screen quality has nothing to do with any possible bias of yours , I would like to remind you that the Kindle has a e-ink screen is much easier on the eyes than an LCD is .
The development of new kinds of e-ink tech ( both color and faster refreshing ) also gives Amazon a road-map for future screen improvements .
Apple 's tablet requirements mean they will be stuck with LCD for the foreseeable future .
OLED would solve their problems I imagine , but it will be years before 10 inch OLEDs are affordable enough for mass market adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm oh so certain the omission of LCD screen quality has nothing to do with any possible bias of yours, I would like to remind you that the Kindle has a e-ink screen is much easier on the eyes than an LCD is.
The development of new kinds of e-ink tech (both color and faster refreshing) also gives Amazon a road-map for future screen improvements.
Apple's tablet requirements mean they will be stuck with LCD for the foreseeable future.
OLED would solve their problems I imagine, but it will be years before 10 inch OLEDs are affordable enough for mass market adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963224</id>
	<title>whose sh*t?</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1264874400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It feels like a repeat of the same s*** Universal Music, and later, NBC Universal pulled with iTunes,</i></p><p>Seems to me Apple is pulling the s*** with iTunes, resulting in price hikes, more DRM, and even less availability.</p><p>Anyway, maybe we'll get lucky and Amazon and Apple destroy each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It feels like a repeat of the same s * * * Universal Music , and later , NBC Universal pulled with iTunes,Seems to me Apple is pulling the s * * * with iTunes , resulting in price hikes , more DRM , and even less availability.Anyway , maybe we 'll get lucky and Amazon and Apple destroy each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It feels like a repeat of the same s*** Universal Music, and later, NBC Universal pulled with iTunes,Seems to me Apple is pulling the s*** with iTunes, resulting in price hikes, more DRM, and even less availability.Anyway, maybe we'll get lucky and Amazon and Apple destroy each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962660</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1264870620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I won't be buying  an e-reader any time soon. Now that I have finally finished my university studies (for the time being) my main motive has been put to one side; I would have liked the idea of being able to carry the contents of my huge (and <i>seriously</i> expensive) molecular biology and biochemistry textbooks on a lightweight gadget. But the devices have to have <i>much</i> better resolution and get a lot more robust before I plough that kind of money into a purchase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I wo n't be buying an e-reader any time soon .
Now that I have finally finished my university studies ( for the time being ) my main motive has been put to one side ; I would have liked the idea of being able to carry the contents of my huge ( and seriously expensive ) molecular biology and biochemistry textbooks on a lightweight gadget .
But the devices have to have much better resolution and get a lot more robust before I plough that kind of money into a purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I won't be buying  an e-reader any time soon.
Now that I have finally finished my university studies (for the time being) my main motive has been put to one side; I would have liked the idea of being able to carry the contents of my huge (and seriously expensive) molecular biology and biochemistry textbooks on a lightweight gadget.
But the devices have to have much better resolution and get a lot more robust before I plough that kind of money into a purchase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964770</id>
	<title>DRM It just doesn't work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"expressing its strong disagreement"</p></div><p> <a href="http://izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion/" title="izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion" rel="nofollow">http://izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion/</a> [izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion]</p><p>Ban that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" expressing its strong disagreement " http : //izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion/ [ izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion ] Ban that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"expressing its strong disagreement" http://izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion/ [izqy7exmc4oqlh27.onion]Ban that...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964078</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>j\_166</author>
	<datestamp>1264879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, sadly, I agree. The unfortunate thing is why does everything always have to devolve into some kind of either-or fanboy sports metaphor. Why do we have to root for either the iPad OR the Kindle. I get that the iPad is a digital consumption device, and part of digital consumption is ebooks, so there is a logical semi-competition there. But it seems like the iPad, especially in puff pieces like this CNN article, is being sold with "Why would you want to ever buy a Kindle, when for a mere doubling of the price you can get this thing that does essentially* what the Kindle does AND so much more. (*essentially is defined as not quite the same thing because of certain key fundamental differences, but for the purposes of this ad we will ignore those.)"</p><p>I mean, is anybody in their right mind really saying "Well, I was going to buy a Kindle, but now that the Apple Kindle-killer has come out, I am going to spend twice as much, because I never really understood what the hell I wanted in the first place anyway." Maybe they are, and I am just disgruntled.</p><p>Anyway, I like my Kindle just fine for reading books. It does it incredibly well. I would consider ditching it for the iPad if the experience would be the same, but its not. There's no reason I can't get an iPad too for the other stuff it does, but it doesn't look like a very good ebook reader when you compare Apples to Apples (IMHO).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , sadly , I agree .
The unfortunate thing is why does everything always have to devolve into some kind of either-or fanboy sports metaphor .
Why do we have to root for either the iPad OR the Kindle .
I get that the iPad is a digital consumption device , and part of digital consumption is ebooks , so there is a logical semi-competition there .
But it seems like the iPad , especially in puff pieces like this CNN article , is being sold with " Why would you want to ever buy a Kindle , when for a mere doubling of the price you can get this thing that does essentially * what the Kindle does AND so much more .
( * essentially is defined as not quite the same thing because of certain key fundamental differences , but for the purposes of this ad we will ignore those .
) " I mean , is anybody in their right mind really saying " Well , I was going to buy a Kindle , but now that the Apple Kindle-killer has come out , I am going to spend twice as much , because I never really understood what the hell I wanted in the first place anyway .
" Maybe they are , and I am just disgruntled.Anyway , I like my Kindle just fine for reading books .
It does it incredibly well .
I would consider ditching it for the iPad if the experience would be the same , but its not .
There 's no reason I ca n't get an iPad too for the other stuff it does , but it does n't look like a very good ebook reader when you compare Apples to Apples ( IMHO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, sadly, I agree.
The unfortunate thing is why does everything always have to devolve into some kind of either-or fanboy sports metaphor.
Why do we have to root for either the iPad OR the Kindle.
I get that the iPad is a digital consumption device, and part of digital consumption is ebooks, so there is a logical semi-competition there.
But it seems like the iPad, especially in puff pieces like this CNN article, is being sold with "Why would you want to ever buy a Kindle, when for a mere doubling of the price you can get this thing that does essentially* what the Kindle does AND so much more.
(*essentially is defined as not quite the same thing because of certain key fundamental differences, but for the purposes of this ad we will ignore those.
)"I mean, is anybody in their right mind really saying "Well, I was going to buy a Kindle, but now that the Apple Kindle-killer has come out, I am going to spend twice as much, because I never really understood what the hell I wanted in the first place anyway.
" Maybe they are, and I am just disgruntled.Anyway, I like my Kindle just fine for reading books.
It does it incredibly well.
I would consider ditching it for the iPad if the experience would be the same, but its not.
There's no reason I can't get an iPad too for the other stuff it does, but it doesn't look like a very good ebook reader when you compare Apples to Apples (IMHO).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963726</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264877160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So then really it's more a convenience for your friend. The trade off is the e-book allows you to carry hundreds of books with you all the time.
<br> <br>
Printing is a dying industry. I doubt Amazon wants to set both items at the same price but instead it is the publisher that wants it. If the publisher does its own printing then it would want to protect its printing business.
<br> <br>
Even if they don't own their own printing, as less printing is done then they either have to live with higher prices or lower quality both of which will have a negative effect on their business.
<br> <br>
If the titles are old titles then there is a good chance they don't own the e-book rights and the publisher will have to renegotiate for those which obviously is not free.
<br> <br>
I don't mind the prices. It's the DRM I could do without.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So then really it 's more a convenience for your friend .
The trade off is the e-book allows you to carry hundreds of books with you all the time .
Printing is a dying industry .
I doubt Amazon wants to set both items at the same price but instead it is the publisher that wants it .
If the publisher does its own printing then it would want to protect its printing business .
Even if they do n't own their own printing , as less printing is done then they either have to live with higher prices or lower quality both of which will have a negative effect on their business .
If the titles are old titles then there is a good chance they do n't own the e-book rights and the publisher will have to renegotiate for those which obviously is not free .
I do n't mind the prices .
It 's the DRM I could do without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then really it's more a convenience for your friend.
The trade off is the e-book allows you to carry hundreds of books with you all the time.
Printing is a dying industry.
I doubt Amazon wants to set both items at the same price but instead it is the publisher that wants it.
If the publisher does its own printing then it would want to protect its printing business.
Even if they don't own their own printing, as less printing is done then they either have to live with higher prices or lower quality both of which will have a negative effect on their business.
If the titles are old titles then there is a good chance they don't own the e-book rights and the publisher will have to renegotiate for those which obviously is not free.
I don't mind the prices.
It's the DRM I could do without.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30968562</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why people buy this c</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264880520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them.</p></div><p>Yet somehow printed books aren't a way to funnel money from you? Have you <em>seen</em> the prices of books lately?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them.Yet somehow printed books are n't a way to funnel money from you ?
Have you seen the prices of books lately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them.Yet somehow printed books aren't a way to funnel money from you?
Have you seen the prices of books lately?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>seanadams.com</author>
	<datestamp>1264870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Example of a recent actual purchase: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Food-Rules-Eaters-Michael-Pollan/dp/014311638X/" title="amazon.com">Food Rules</a> [amazon.com].  $5 paper, $5 kindle.</p><p>I'd consider that a particularly good example of getting far less value in the kindle version, because that is exactly the kind of book that I would want to give to a friend when I'm done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Example of a recent actual purchase : Food Rules [ amazon.com ] .
$ 5 paper , $ 5 kindle.I 'd consider that a particularly good example of getting far less value in the kindle version , because that is exactly the kind of book that I would want to give to a friend when I 'm done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Example of a recent actual purchase: Food Rules [amazon.com].
$5 paper, $5 kindle.I'd consider that a particularly good example of getting far less value in the kindle version, because that is exactly the kind of book that I would want to give to a friend when I'm done with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965004</id>
	<title>but doesn't come out until after the hardback...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264842540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and the hardback is $$$ vs. the Kindle edition.</p><p>New hardback vs. kindle edition is one of the few scenarios where the kindle could save you money.  But generally, saving money isn't kindle's main benefit in my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and the hardback is $ $ $ vs. the Kindle edition.New hardback vs. kindle edition is one of the few scenarios where the kindle could save you money .
But generally , saving money is n't kindle 's main benefit in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and the hardback is $$$ vs. the Kindle edition.New hardback vs. kindle edition is one of the few scenarios where the kindle could save you money.
But generally, saving money isn't kindle's main benefit in my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963974</id>
	<title>Who wins an Apple-Amazone ebook war?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264878600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barnes and Noble, <i>especially</i> if Amazon's tactics include delisting print publishers that sign deals with Apple for ebooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barnes and Noble , especially if Amazon 's tactics include delisting print publishers that sign deals with Apple for ebooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barnes and Noble, especially if Amazon's tactics include delisting print publishers that sign deals with Apple for ebooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962846</id>
	<title>But I thought...</title>
	<author>absurdist</author>
	<datestamp>1264872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...competition was supposed to lower prices, not raise them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...competition was supposed to lower prices , not raise them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...competition was supposed to lower prices, not raise them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962496</id>
	<title>This could turn out worse then the imagine</title>
	<author>peripatetic\_bum</author>
	<datestamp>1264869240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought when I read that a publishing group was being delisted was how am I going to know what was delisted?</p><p>I use amazon because I feel (dont really know) that it gives me access to pretty much every book that I can buy and so if Im researching a topic or want to read about something now IM not so sure that I'll use amazon.</p><p>Yeah, I know I could use a library but I live somewhere where its not that great and I dont know how to seach for books in other way, but now that I think of it, I'll do some googling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought when I read that a publishing group was being delisted was how am I going to know what was delisted ? I use amazon because I feel ( dont really know ) that it gives me access to pretty much every book that I can buy and so if Im researching a topic or want to read about something now IM not so sure that I 'll use amazon.Yeah , I know I could use a library but I live somewhere where its not that great and I dont know how to seach for books in other way , but now that I think of it , I 'll do some googling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought when I read that a publishing group was being delisted was how am I going to know what was delisted?I use amazon because I feel (dont really know) that it gives me access to pretty much every book that I can buy and so if Im researching a topic or want to read about something now IM not so sure that I'll use amazon.Yeah, I know I could use a library but I live somewhere where its not that great and I dont know how to seach for books in other way, but now that I think of it, I'll do some googling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965610</id>
	<title>Word from Amazon</title>
	<author>Malkthulhu</author>
	<datestamp>1264847100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just received the following from Amazon.com:</p><p><i>Hello,</i></p><p><i>We are working with the publisher to make their titles available as soon as possible and at the lowest possible prices for our customers. We will e-mail you when these titles are available, which we hope will be soon.</i></p><p><i>Just click the link for "new and used" offers for this title.</i></p><p><i>We hope to see you again soon.</i></p><p>This is really annoying for Amazon Prime members, as the "free" shipping has suddenly disappeared for all Macmillian titles.</p><p>Frankly, I really don't care about the eBook dispute; the fact that this is disrupting purchases of dead-tree books just pisses me off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just received the following from Amazon.com : Hello,We are working with the publisher to make their titles available as soon as possible and at the lowest possible prices for our customers .
We will e-mail you when these titles are available , which we hope will be soon.Just click the link for " new and used " offers for this title.We hope to see you again soon.This is really annoying for Amazon Prime members , as the " free " shipping has suddenly disappeared for all Macmillian titles.Frankly , I really do n't care about the eBook dispute ; the fact that this is disrupting purchases of dead-tree books just pisses me off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just received the following from Amazon.com:Hello,We are working with the publisher to make their titles available as soon as possible and at the lowest possible prices for our customers.
We will e-mail you when these titles are available, which we hope will be soon.Just click the link for "new and used" offers for this title.We hope to see you again soon.This is really annoying for Amazon Prime members, as the "free" shipping has suddenly disappeared for all Macmillian titles.Frankly, I really don't care about the eBook dispute; the fact that this is disrupting purchases of dead-tree books just pisses me off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514</id>
	<title>A paperback is 7 bucks</title>
	<author>ThreeGigs</author>
	<datestamp>1264869420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No printing, distribution, warehousing, etc.<br>I want to pay \_less\_ for an ebook than a paper book, especially considering I can't easily resell an ebook.<br>No Kindle for me, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No printing , distribution , warehousing , etc.I want to pay \ _less \ _ for an ebook than a paper book , especially considering I ca n't easily resell an ebook.No Kindle for me , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No printing, distribution, warehousing, etc.I want to pay \_less\_ for an ebook than a paper book, especially considering I can't easily resell an ebook.No Kindle for me, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962808</id>
	<title>MacMillan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got to say that MacMillan has never liked the concept of e-books to begin with, has been one of the fiercest supporters of strong DRM, and have ALWAYS wanted to price their e-books way too high.  MacMillan is, for those who don't know, the owners of the TOR imprint (read: Wheel of Time) as the one most likely to be known by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers.  That's right, the same people who will price an e-book like a hardcover after the paperback is out, and who regularly charged $15 for the PROLOGUES of the wheel of time books in electronic format.  Plus they almost always delay the e-book publications, which annoys me.  I have never liked MacMillan, and the only reason they get away with it (from me) is because while I don't like their company's policies on digital media, they actually do have pretty high quality editors and authors.
<br>
And while they could probably care less at Amazon de-listing their kindle books, if they've delisted the dead tree books, that's a real threat.  And they deserve it, probably.  That said, this is a game of chicken.  Amazon can't afford to de-list their dead-tree for very long, and MacMillan can't afford to have them de-listed for very long.  Who will blink first?
<br>
Or it could just be a glitch, there's no official reasons posted and TFA even admits they're not sure of the link, here.  Amazon has had some wierd glitches before.
<br>
In another note, I do a lot of e-book reading on both my Kindle and my Laptop and other devices, and if what I want to do is 'sit and read a book' for several hours, the kindle wins every time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got to say that MacMillan has never liked the concept of e-books to begin with , has been one of the fiercest supporters of strong DRM , and have ALWAYS wanted to price their e-books way too high .
MacMillan is , for those who do n't know , the owners of the TOR imprint ( read : Wheel of Time ) as the one most likely to be known by / .
readers. That 's right , the same people who will price an e-book like a hardcover after the paperback is out , and who regularly charged $ 15 for the PROLOGUES of the wheel of time books in electronic format .
Plus they almost always delay the e-book publications , which annoys me .
I have never liked MacMillan , and the only reason they get away with it ( from me ) is because while I do n't like their company 's policies on digital media , they actually do have pretty high quality editors and authors .
And while they could probably care less at Amazon de-listing their kindle books , if they 've delisted the dead tree books , that 's a real threat .
And they deserve it , probably .
That said , this is a game of chicken .
Amazon ca n't afford to de-list their dead-tree for very long , and MacMillan ca n't afford to have them de-listed for very long .
Who will blink first ?
Or it could just be a glitch , there 's no official reasons posted and TFA even admits they 're not sure of the link , here .
Amazon has had some wierd glitches before .
In another note , I do a lot of e-book reading on both my Kindle and my Laptop and other devices , and if what I want to do is 'sit and read a book ' for several hours , the kindle wins every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got to say that MacMillan has never liked the concept of e-books to begin with, has been one of the fiercest supporters of strong DRM, and have ALWAYS wanted to price their e-books way too high.
MacMillan is, for those who don't know, the owners of the TOR imprint (read: Wheel of Time) as the one most likely to be known by /.
readers.  That's right, the same people who will price an e-book like a hardcover after the paperback is out, and who regularly charged $15 for the PROLOGUES of the wheel of time books in electronic format.
Plus they almost always delay the e-book publications, which annoys me.
I have never liked MacMillan, and the only reason they get away with it (from me) is because while I don't like their company's policies on digital media, they actually do have pretty high quality editors and authors.
And while they could probably care less at Amazon de-listing their kindle books, if they've delisted the dead tree books, that's a real threat.
And they deserve it, probably.
That said, this is a game of chicken.
Amazon can't afford to de-list their dead-tree for very long, and MacMillan can't afford to have them de-listed for very long.
Who will blink first?
Or it could just be a glitch, there's no official reasons posted and TFA even admits they're not sure of the link, here.
Amazon has had some wierd glitches before.
In another note, I do a lot of e-book reading on both my Kindle and my Laptop and other devices, and if what I want to do is 'sit and read a book' for several hours, the kindle wins every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264869780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost <i>even more</i> than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.  What difference does that make to publishing costs, you ask?  Virtually none!  But whether from tape to CD, or VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray, publishers always use any bump in functionality to increase the price as well.
<p>
But is it more functional?  Personally, I think the backlit LCD screen is the achilles heel of the iPad as a e-book reader.  Being readable outdoors, and consuming no power at all unless turning pages, is what virtually defines the usefulness of an ebook.  But I look at how color screens ruined the mp3 player market by pushing out B&amp;W LCD screens that were sunlight visible and had great battery life, with color screens that were in <i>no way</i> superior for an mp3 player, and I fear the same for e-paper.
</p><p>
CNN is running an <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/28/technology/ipad\_kindle/index.htm?cnn=yes&amp;hpt=Sbin" title="cnn.com">iPad vs Kindle</a> [cnn.com] fluff piece thought experiment this morning and give virtually no weight to the utility of e-paper vs. the pizzazz of color, and unfortunately I expect the same from most consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle , since they 're higher resolution and in color .
What difference does that make to publishing costs , you ask ?
Virtually none !
But whether from tape to CD , or VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray , publishers always use any bump in functionality to increase the price as well .
But is it more functional ?
Personally , I think the backlit LCD screen is the achilles heel of the iPad as a e-book reader .
Being readable outdoors , and consuming no power at all unless turning pages , is what virtually defines the usefulness of an ebook .
But I look at how color screens ruined the mp3 player market by pushing out B&amp;W LCD screens that were sunlight visible and had great battery life , with color screens that were in no way superior for an mp3 player , and I fear the same for e-paper .
CNN is running an iPad vs Kindle [ cnn.com ] fluff piece thought experiment this morning and give virtually no weight to the utility of e-paper vs. the pizzazz of color , and unfortunately I expect the same from most consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.
What difference does that make to publishing costs, you ask?
Virtually none!
But whether from tape to CD, or VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray, publishers always use any bump in functionality to increase the price as well.
But is it more functional?
Personally, I think the backlit LCD screen is the achilles heel of the iPad as a e-book reader.
Being readable outdoors, and consuming no power at all unless turning pages, is what virtually defines the usefulness of an ebook.
But I look at how color screens ruined the mp3 player market by pushing out B&amp;W LCD screens that were sunlight visible and had great battery life, with color screens that were in no way superior for an mp3 player, and I fear the same for e-paper.
CNN is running an iPad vs Kindle [cnn.com] fluff piece thought experiment this morning and give virtually no weight to the utility of e-paper vs. the pizzazz of color, and unfortunately I expect the same from most consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962906</id>
	<title>My big question is...</title>
	<author>Gerocrack</author>
	<datestamp>1264872480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are they going to lock out the Kindle iPhone application from running on the iPad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>are they going to lock out the Kindle iPhone application from running on the iPad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are they going to lock out the Kindle iPhone application from running on the iPad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964484</id>
	<title>Re:A paperback is 7 bucks</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1264882140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!  $10 is a ridiculously high price for regular books that sell for $6-7 in paperback form.  $15 is just insulting.  What kind of morons are running that industry?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
$ 10 is a ridiculously high price for regular books that sell for $ 6-7 in paperback form .
$ 15 is just insulting .
What kind of morons are running that industry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
$10 is a ridiculously high price for regular books that sell for $6-7 in paperback form.
$15 is just insulting.
What kind of morons are running that industry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964684</id>
	<title>You are correct about Tor.</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1264883640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Scalzi (and others, I'm sure) discusses it in his blog, <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/" title="scalzi.com" rel="nofollow">Whatever</a> [scalzi.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Scalzi ( and others , I 'm sure ) discusses it in his blog , Whatever [ scalzi.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Scalzi (and others, I'm sure) discusses it in his blog, Whatever [scalzi.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964072</id>
	<title>Amazon and Apple are not really fighting...</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1264879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The interesting thing about this battle, is how it is wholly unlike the music battle.</p><p>I don't know if I see either Amazon or Apple gaining an upper hand in selling eBooks.  I think the iPad will be far more popular than the Kindle, but the thing is that Amazon already has a iPhone Kindle reader and it can take advantage of the greater space on the iPad.</p><p>iBooks will be more convenient shipping on the device as it does, but Amazon already has an established market with a descent size (I don't own a Kindle but I do have a few Kindle books that I read on my iPhone).  So I think that ease of use of iBook will be balanced out by Amazons cheaper prices, which means neither will have a dominant market share after a year or so.  So it's pretty important that Amazon hold the line on price, otherwise they lose that counterbalance that keeps people buying Kindle books.</p><p>The Nook is utterly screwed though.  They launched too late and consumers will choose either an iPad/Kindle.</p><p>I have to say the inability to use the eBooks from either Amazon or Apple outside of the reader space has made me very reluctant to to buy them at all, I still prefer physical books unless the eBook is compellingly cheaper.  But for travel there's no denying how much nicer an electronic book is, which is why I have any at all.. the way I stand to do it is I just think of it like a very expensive rental and if I like the book I buy a real copy later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting thing about this battle , is how it is wholly unlike the music battle.I do n't know if I see either Amazon or Apple gaining an upper hand in selling eBooks .
I think the iPad will be far more popular than the Kindle , but the thing is that Amazon already has a iPhone Kindle reader and it can take advantage of the greater space on the iPad.iBooks will be more convenient shipping on the device as it does , but Amazon already has an established market with a descent size ( I do n't own a Kindle but I do have a few Kindle books that I read on my iPhone ) .
So I think that ease of use of iBook will be balanced out by Amazons cheaper prices , which means neither will have a dominant market share after a year or so .
So it 's pretty important that Amazon hold the line on price , otherwise they lose that counterbalance that keeps people buying Kindle books.The Nook is utterly screwed though .
They launched too late and consumers will choose either an iPad/Kindle.I have to say the inability to use the eBooks from either Amazon or Apple outside of the reader space has made me very reluctant to to buy them at all , I still prefer physical books unless the eBook is compellingly cheaper .
But for travel there 's no denying how much nicer an electronic book is , which is why I have any at all.. the way I stand to do it is I just think of it like a very expensive rental and if I like the book I buy a real copy later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting thing about this battle, is how it is wholly unlike the music battle.I don't know if I see either Amazon or Apple gaining an upper hand in selling eBooks.
I think the iPad will be far more popular than the Kindle, but the thing is that Amazon already has a iPhone Kindle reader and it can take advantage of the greater space on the iPad.iBooks will be more convenient shipping on the device as it does, but Amazon already has an established market with a descent size (I don't own a Kindle but I do have a few Kindle books that I read on my iPhone).
So I think that ease of use of iBook will be balanced out by Amazons cheaper prices, which means neither will have a dominant market share after a year or so.
So it's pretty important that Amazon hold the line on price, otherwise they lose that counterbalance that keeps people buying Kindle books.The Nook is utterly screwed though.
They launched too late and consumers will choose either an iPad/Kindle.I have to say the inability to use the eBooks from either Amazon or Apple outside of the reader space has made me very reluctant to to buy them at all, I still prefer physical books unless the eBook is compellingly cheaper.
But for travel there's no denying how much nicer an electronic book is, which is why I have any at all.. the way I stand to do it is I just think of it like a very expensive rental and if I like the book I buy a real copy later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965488</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>jimfrost</author>
	<datestamp>1264846080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon's books are color too, if you have a color-capable device (such as an iPhone).  The real reason why books from Apple are likely to be more expensive (as are those from Sony today) is that Apple is a small retailer relative to Amazon.  Amazon has much more negotiating strength.  The same things that Apple can and does do in negotiations with record labels Amazon does with publishers.<p>

Apple, which sells no paper copies at all, really cannot strong-arm the publishers.  The only lever they have is that they are an alternative to Amazon.  But so is B&amp;N.  It will really come down to who sells the most readers, and Amazon is way ahead and it is unlikely that a $500 reader is going to compete well in volume versus a $260 Kindle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon 's books are color too , if you have a color-capable device ( such as an iPhone ) .
The real reason why books from Apple are likely to be more expensive ( as are those from Sony today ) is that Apple is a small retailer relative to Amazon .
Amazon has much more negotiating strength .
The same things that Apple can and does do in negotiations with record labels Amazon does with publishers .
Apple , which sells no paper copies at all , really can not strong-arm the publishers .
The only lever they have is that they are an alternative to Amazon .
But so is B&amp;N .
It will really come down to who sells the most readers , and Amazon is way ahead and it is unlikely that a $ 500 reader is going to compete well in volume versus a $ 260 Kindle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon's books are color too, if you have a color-capable device (such as an iPhone).
The real reason why books from Apple are likely to be more expensive (as are those from Sony today) is that Apple is a small retailer relative to Amazon.
Amazon has much more negotiating strength.
The same things that Apple can and does do in negotiations with record labels Amazon does with publishers.
Apple, which sells no paper copies at all, really cannot strong-arm the publishers.
The only lever they have is that they are an alternative to Amazon.
But so is B&amp;N.
It will really come down to who sells the most readers, and Amazon is way ahead and it is unlikely that a $500 reader is going to compete well in volume versus a $260 Kindle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963700</id>
	<title>Re:This could turn out worse then the imagine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264877040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a fine time to switch to Barnes &amp; Noble [bn.com] for your books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a fine time to switch to Barnes &amp; Noble [ bn.com ] for your books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a fine time to switch to Barnes &amp; Noble [bn.com] for your books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962412</id>
	<title>Seems to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That what's actually going on here is that Macmillan isn't committing anti-trust: they're merely setting their wholesale price for e-Books at a level that Amazon doesn't like.</p><p>Who's committing anti-competitive behaviour is Amazon: illegally tying stopping sales of paper books because they don't like the price they were quoted on electronic books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That what 's actually going on here is that Macmillan is n't committing anti-trust : they 're merely setting their wholesale price for e-Books at a level that Amazon does n't like.Who 's committing anti-competitive behaviour is Amazon : illegally tying stopping sales of paper books because they do n't like the price they were quoted on electronic books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That what's actually going on here is that Macmillan isn't committing anti-trust: they're merely setting their wholesale price for e-Books at a level that Amazon doesn't like.Who's committing anti-competitive behaviour is Amazon: illegally tying stopping sales of paper books because they don't like the price they were quoted on electronic books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962784</id>
	<title>Re:Th MusicWars-give me DRM free EPUB and i'm sold</title>
	<author>Dimble ThriceFoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264871640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to archive my ebooks on my computer, i want to be able to read them via fbreader on my n900 or via Calibre on my netbook.

In short i don't want DRM infested ebooks at all.

I'm willing to spend a lot of money if the market will give me what i want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to archive my ebooks on my computer , i want to be able to read them via fbreader on my n900 or via Calibre on my netbook .
In short i do n't want DRM infested ebooks at all .
I 'm willing to spend a lot of money if the market will give me what i want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to archive my ebooks on my computer, i want to be able to read them via fbreader on my n900 or via Calibre on my netbook.
In short i don't want DRM infested ebooks at all.
I'm willing to spend a lot of money if the market will give me what i want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30970692</id>
	<title>What should an e-book cost?</title>
	<author>haase</author>
	<datestamp>1264956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Book pricing (like most pricing) is only loosely related to production costs. The entire publishing ecosystem is being dragged into the digital age by a mix of defacto bribes and strong-arming from technology companies like Amazon and Apple.  (Shameless plug for more detail at http://blog.sbooks.net/2010/01/14/ebookcost/.<br>The real sparks may start to fly when the price wars collide with vendor lock-in.  It's not clear what kind of DRM we'll see for iBooks.  They've mentioned using ePub, but it's not clear if they'll go with Adobe's DRM, like the Nook, or some version of their own.  It will also be interesting to see if Apple allows the iPhone/iTouch Kindle app on the iPad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Book pricing ( like most pricing ) is only loosely related to production costs .
The entire publishing ecosystem is being dragged into the digital age by a mix of defacto bribes and strong-arming from technology companies like Amazon and Apple .
( Shameless plug for more detail at http : //blog.sbooks.net/2010/01/14/ebookcost/.The real sparks may start to fly when the price wars collide with vendor lock-in .
It 's not clear what kind of DRM we 'll see for iBooks .
They 've mentioned using ePub , but it 's not clear if they 'll go with Adobe 's DRM , like the Nook , or some version of their own .
It will also be interesting to see if Apple allows the iPhone/iTouch Kindle app on the iPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Book pricing (like most pricing) is only loosely related to production costs.
The entire publishing ecosystem is being dragged into the digital age by a mix of defacto bribes and strong-arming from technology companies like Amazon and Apple.
(Shameless plug for more detail at http://blog.sbooks.net/2010/01/14/ebookcost/.The real sparks may start to fly when the price wars collide with vendor lock-in.
It's not clear what kind of DRM we'll see for iBooks.
They've mentioned using ePub, but it's not clear if they'll go with Adobe's DRM, like the Nook, or some version of their own.
It will also be interesting to see if Apple allows the iPhone/iTouch Kindle app on the iPad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962512</id>
	<title>Meanwhile the authors suffer</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1264869420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>and no doubt sales will drop while this shenannigans plays out. Although the executives and staff will still collect their pay the authors will not get the royalties they may have been expecting, now that a large (very large?) percentage of the book-buying public no longer have easy access to their wares.
<p>
Hopefully this will cause more than a few authors to reflect on who they want to be in charge of their livelihoods: a bunch of suits playing politics with the authors prospects, or some other distributor (or collective) who has their wellbeing foremost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and no doubt sales will drop while this shenannigans plays out .
Although the executives and staff will still collect their pay the authors will not get the royalties they may have been expecting , now that a large ( very large ?
) percentage of the book-buying public no longer have easy access to their wares .
Hopefully this will cause more than a few authors to reflect on who they want to be in charge of their livelihoods : a bunch of suits playing politics with the authors prospects , or some other distributor ( or collective ) who has their wellbeing foremost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and no doubt sales will drop while this shenannigans plays out.
Although the executives and staff will still collect their pay the authors will not get the royalties they may have been expecting, now that a large (very large?
) percentage of the book-buying public no longer have easy access to their wares.
Hopefully this will cause more than a few authors to reflect on who they want to be in charge of their livelihoods: a bunch of suits playing politics with the authors prospects, or some other distributor (or collective) who has their wellbeing foremost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962806</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1264871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...<i>but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree.</i> <br> <br>
I'm not so sure that we can count on such a durability advantage. This is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine, so I'll try to keep it brief...<br> <br>
I am of the opinion that in the future, the 20th and most of the 19th centuries are going to appear to surviving generations as something of a "dark age". Since publishers started using woodchips to provide the requisite fibre to make paper in about the 1820s, residual acids in the paper have had a destructive effect on the paper. While some quality publications still appear on rag or otherwise stabilised or buffered paper, much has simply disintegrated.<br> <br>
The trouble is, although printers must be aware of the problem, they don't seem to be doing anything about it. I have many texts from the 1980s which are in very poor shape, which is bad enough. But what has disappointed me more is that a number of books I have bought *new* in the last year are already showing signs of serious foxing.<br> <br>
Although I still love the feel - and the smell - of printed paper, I'm inclined to think the textual content has a better chance of survival in digital form, provided that it is stripped of proprietary formats and DRM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree .
I 'm not so sure that we can count on such a durability advantage .
This is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine , so I 'll try to keep it brief.. . I am of the opinion that in the future , the 20th and most of the 19th centuries are going to appear to surviving generations as something of a " dark age " .
Since publishers started using woodchips to provide the requisite fibre to make paper in about the 1820s , residual acids in the paper have had a destructive effect on the paper .
While some quality publications still appear on rag or otherwise stabilised or buffered paper , much has simply disintegrated .
The trouble is , although printers must be aware of the problem , they do n't seem to be doing anything about it .
I have many texts from the 1980s which are in very poor shape , which is bad enough .
But what has disappointed me more is that a number of books I have bought * new * in the last year are already showing signs of serious foxing .
Although I still love the feel - and the smell - of printed paper , I 'm inclined to think the textual content has a better chance of survival in digital form , provided that it is stripped of proprietary formats and DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree.
I'm not so sure that we can count on such a durability advantage.
This is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine, so I'll try to keep it brief... 
I am of the opinion that in the future, the 20th and most of the 19th centuries are going to appear to surviving generations as something of a "dark age".
Since publishers started using woodchips to provide the requisite fibre to make paper in about the 1820s, residual acids in the paper have had a destructive effect on the paper.
While some quality publications still appear on rag or otherwise stabilised or buffered paper, much has simply disintegrated.
The trouble is, although printers must be aware of the problem, they don't seem to be doing anything about it.
I have many texts from the 1980s which are in very poor shape, which is bad enough.
But what has disappointed me more is that a number of books I have bought *new* in the last year are already showing signs of serious foxing.
Although I still love the feel - and the smell - of printed paper, I'm inclined to think the textual content has a better chance of survival in digital form, provided that it is stripped of proprietary formats and DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962542</id>
	<title>iPad isn't an ebook reader</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264869720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't understand why people keep trying to shoehorn epaper and netbooks into the same category.  I wish apple luck, and I think i might get iPad if i didn't already have an apple <em>laptop</em>: iPad + iMac would cover more use cases than Macbook + iMac, and cost less as well*, although just a macbook + generic LCD external monitor covers a lot of those cases as well.</p><p>*presuming of course, an all-apple home.</p><p>But it's not an ebook reader, and the Kindle is not the only e-reader, nor is it the only widely-held e-reader.  Sony has a number of mature offerings, and Barnes &amp; Noble's device looks very interesting, although it can't possibly have the numbers to compete with amazon <em>yet</em>, it's only two months old and it's been sold out for one and a half of those months.</p><p>I think publishers would be making a mistake if they think they can play apple and amazon against each other in this case, or if they think that trying to do that worked for them in the last case (e-music)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand why people keep trying to shoehorn epaper and netbooks into the same category .
I wish apple luck , and I think i might get iPad if i did n't already have an apple laptop : iPad + iMac would cover more use cases than Macbook + iMac , and cost less as well * , although just a macbook + generic LCD external monitor covers a lot of those cases as well .
* presuming of course , an all-apple home.But it 's not an ebook reader , and the Kindle is not the only e-reader , nor is it the only widely-held e-reader .
Sony has a number of mature offerings , and Barnes &amp; Noble 's device looks very interesting , although it ca n't possibly have the numbers to compete with amazon yet , it 's only two months old and it 's been sold out for one and a half of those months.I think publishers would be making a mistake if they think they can play apple and amazon against each other in this case , or if they think that trying to do that worked for them in the last case ( e-music )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand why people keep trying to shoehorn epaper and netbooks into the same category.
I wish apple luck, and I think i might get iPad if i didn't already have an apple laptop: iPad + iMac would cover more use cases than Macbook + iMac, and cost less as well*, although just a macbook + generic LCD external monitor covers a lot of those cases as well.
*presuming of course, an all-apple home.But it's not an ebook reader, and the Kindle is not the only e-reader, nor is it the only widely-held e-reader.
Sony has a number of mature offerings, and Barnes &amp; Noble's device looks very interesting, although it can't possibly have the numbers to compete with amazon yet, it's only two months old and it's been sold out for one and a half of those months.I think publishers would be making a mistake if they think they can play apple and amazon against each other in this case, or if they think that trying to do that worked for them in the last case (e-music)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963892</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why people buy this c</title>
	<author>CrackedButter</author>
	<datestamp>1264878060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want the bulk personally, I don't like having loads of possessions, all my music and film is digital.  I haven't bought any ebooks yet either.  So i'm happy to sit on the side lines for the moment.  As long as I get Copy and Paste and the ability to highlight text within an ebook then I'll be happy.  I want features that go beyond the paperback, adding value and making it worth the price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want the bulk personally , I do n't like having loads of possessions , all my music and film is digital .
I have n't bought any ebooks yet either .
So i 'm happy to sit on the side lines for the moment .
As long as I get Copy and Paste and the ability to highlight text within an ebook then I 'll be happy .
I want features that go beyond the paperback , adding value and making it worth the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want the bulk personally, I don't like having loads of possessions, all my music and film is digital.
I haven't bought any ebooks yet either.
So i'm happy to sit on the side lines for the moment.
As long as I get Copy and Paste and the ability to highlight text within an ebook then I'll be happy.
I want features that go beyond the paperback, adding value and making it worth the price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963582</id>
	<title>Publishers seem very resistant to ebooks generally</title>
	<author>OFnow</author>
	<datestamp>1264876380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I now buy more via kindle than on paper, and am frequently annoyed when a kindle version is not available.  Recently a book published in 1924 was recommended.  ebook format? Not available. Only dead tree.  Half the books I find on amazon seem to be unavailable on kindle.  I don't buy the paper one (with rare exceptions), I just skip that title.</p><p>On pricing: it seems the publishers want us to believe they don't price based on print cost but instead on 'value'.<br>But we  all notice that is contradictory to our experience, they generally do price exactly on print cost (at least it sure feels that way when looking at books in the store).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I now buy more via kindle than on paper , and am frequently annoyed when a kindle version is not available .
Recently a book published in 1924 was recommended .
ebook format ?
Not available .
Only dead tree .
Half the books I find on amazon seem to be unavailable on kindle .
I do n't buy the paper one ( with rare exceptions ) , I just skip that title.On pricing : it seems the publishers want us to believe they do n't price based on print cost but instead on 'value'.But we all notice that is contradictory to our experience , they generally do price exactly on print cost ( at least it sure feels that way when looking at books in the store ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now buy more via kindle than on paper, and am frequently annoyed when a kindle version is not available.
Recently a book published in 1924 was recommended.
ebook format?
Not available.
Only dead tree.
Half the books I find on amazon seem to be unavailable on kindle.
I don't buy the paper one (with rare exceptions), I just skip that title.On pricing: it seems the publishers want us to believe they don't price based on print cost but instead on 'value'.But we  all notice that is contradictory to our experience, they generally do price exactly on print cost (at least it sure feels that way when looking at books in the store).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963528</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264876020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>E-books are mostly text. How can text be higher resolution? Seriously, you can adjust the font size to suit your needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>E-books are mostly text .
How can text be higher resolution ?
Seriously , you can adjust the font size to suit your needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E-books are mostly text.
How can text be higher resolution?
Seriously, you can adjust the font size to suit your needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965374</id>
	<title>Re:As compared to the iTunes skirmishes</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264845240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's a great possibility they'll outsell kindle on "total devices" but the question of outselling them on <em>books</em> is another matter that depends largely on a market that really hasn't developed enough yet to make accurate predictions about.</p><p>Actually both matters depend on new and undeveloped markets, come to think of it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's a great possibility they 'll outsell kindle on " total devices " but the question of outselling them on books is another matter that depends largely on a market that really has n't developed enough yet to make accurate predictions about.Actually both matters depend on new and undeveloped markets , come to think of it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's a great possibility they'll outsell kindle on "total devices" but the question of outselling them on books is another matter that depends largely on a market that really hasn't developed enough yet to make accurate predictions about.Actually both matters depend on new and undeveloped markets, come to think of it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964084</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The kindle DX -- the version that is similar in size to the iPad, and a little less expensive -- has greater resolution than the iPad (both in number of pixels and pixel density), the regular Kindle has greater pixel density than the iPad (150ppi vs. 132ppi) and is more portable. So I'm not at all sure what you mean here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle , since they 're higher resolution and in color .
The kindle DX -- the version that is similar in size to the iPad , and a little less expensive -- has greater resolution than the iPad ( both in number of pixels and pixel density ) , the regular Kindle has greater pixel density than the iPad ( 150ppi vs. 132ppi ) and is more portable .
So I 'm not at all sure what you mean here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.
The kindle DX -- the version that is similar in size to the iPad, and a little less expensive -- has greater resolution than the iPad (both in number of pixels and pixel density), the regular Kindle has greater pixel density than the iPad (150ppi vs. 132ppi) and is more portable.
So I'm not at all sure what you mean here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964848</id>
	<title>what I think of e-book readers personally</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1264884720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think the backlit LCD screen is the achilles heel of the iPad as a e-book reader.</i> </p><p>Personally I think the cost of e-book readers are achilles heel of them.</p><p><i>Being readable outdoors, and consuming no power at all unless turning pages, is what virtually defines the usefulness of an ebook.</i></p><p>Being able to read a book period is what defines it's usefulness.  No battery or a dead battery doesn't work.  However I can grab one of my print books and take it outside to read by star/moonlight.  Growing up I did precisely that, grab a book, walk out the front door, lay in the grass, and read the book.  That is when I wasn't star gazing.</p><p><i>CNN is running an iPad vs Kindle fluff piece thought experiment this morning and give virtually no weight to the utility of e-paper vs. the pizzazz of color, and unfortunately I expect the same from most consumers</i></p><p>And what of the utility of being able to use a tablet and not just an e-book reader?  Personally I have no interest in getting an iPad, however if Apple were to take a Wacom tablet and marry it to a MacBook Pro (the MacBook Pro Tablet) then I, and probably lots of other photographers, would be interested.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the backlit LCD screen is the achilles heel of the iPad as a e-book reader .
Personally I think the cost of e-book readers are achilles heel of them.Being readable outdoors , and consuming no power at all unless turning pages , is what virtually defines the usefulness of an ebook.Being able to read a book period is what defines it 's usefulness .
No battery or a dead battery does n't work .
However I can grab one of my print books and take it outside to read by star/moonlight .
Growing up I did precisely that , grab a book , walk out the front door , lay in the grass , and read the book .
That is when I was n't star gazing.CNN is running an iPad vs Kindle fluff piece thought experiment this morning and give virtually no weight to the utility of e-paper vs. the pizzazz of color , and unfortunately I expect the same from most consumersAnd what of the utility of being able to use a tablet and not just an e-book reader ?
Personally I have no interest in getting an iPad , however if Apple were to take a Wacom tablet and marry it to a MacBook Pro ( the MacBook Pro Tablet ) then I , and probably lots of other photographers , would be interested .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the backlit LCD screen is the achilles heel of the iPad as a e-book reader.
Personally I think the cost of e-book readers are achilles heel of them.Being readable outdoors, and consuming no power at all unless turning pages, is what virtually defines the usefulness of an ebook.Being able to read a book period is what defines it's usefulness.
No battery or a dead battery doesn't work.
However I can grab one of my print books and take it outside to read by star/moonlight.
Growing up I did precisely that, grab a book, walk out the front door, lay in the grass, and read the book.
That is when I wasn't star gazing.CNN is running an iPad vs Kindle fluff piece thought experiment this morning and give virtually no weight to the utility of e-paper vs. the pizzazz of color, and unfortunately I expect the same from most consumersAnd what of the utility of being able to use a tablet and not just an e-book reader?
Personally I have no interest in getting an iPad, however if Apple were to take a Wacom tablet and marry it to a MacBook Pro (the MacBook Pro Tablet) then I, and probably lots of other photographers, would be interested.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963140</id>
	<title>there was just a story</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1264874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. where some of the comments pointed out how people are being caged with Apple's plan to only allow iStore apps on their products. with the results of this particular fracas, it seems that the cage is also getting a strict perimeter established around it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on / .
where some of the comments pointed out how people are being caged with Apple 's plan to only allow iStore apps on their products .
with the results of this particular fracas , it seems that the cage is also getting a strict perimeter established around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on /.
where some of the comments pointed out how people are being caged with Apple's plan to only allow iStore apps on their products.
with the results of this particular fracas, it seems that the cage is also getting a strict perimeter established around it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962536</id>
	<title>Ah, good, might accelerate end of eBook DRM</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1264869660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have little detail about iBooks, but I see a comment asking about DRM within the first 31 comments <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938\_105-10442855-1.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">on the review on cnet.com</a> [cnet.com]. The reply to that comment leads me to believe that the eBook industry is heading into a big mess of incompatible DRM formats, just what caused the music industry such problems when they unsuccessfully tried to dethrone iTunes.</p><p>One of the fallouts of that was that selling DRM-free music started to be viewed by the music industry as a a necessary evil. We can only hope that the book publishing industry will take less time to get to the same (correct) conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have little detail about iBooks , but I see a comment asking about DRM within the first 31 comments on the review on cnet.com [ cnet.com ] .
The reply to that comment leads me to believe that the eBook industry is heading into a big mess of incompatible DRM formats , just what caused the music industry such problems when they unsuccessfully tried to dethrone iTunes.One of the fallouts of that was that selling DRM-free music started to be viewed by the music industry as a a necessary evil .
We can only hope that the book publishing industry will take less time to get to the same ( correct ) conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have little detail about iBooks, but I see a comment asking about DRM within the first 31 comments on the review on cnet.com [cnet.com].
The reply to that comment leads me to believe that the eBook industry is heading into a big mess of incompatible DRM formats, just what caused the music industry such problems when they unsuccessfully tried to dethrone iTunes.One of the fallouts of that was that selling DRM-free music started to be viewed by the music industry as a a necessary evil.
We can only hope that the book publishing industry will take less time to get to the same (correct) conclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963970</id>
	<title>Re:A paperback is 7 bucks</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1264878540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's why they're so expensive:  Amazon takes 30 - 60\%.  It really costs near nothing to print and ship a paperback, maybe $0.60 or so.  The Amazon fees on paperbooks are 15-30\%.  The math is simple to the publishers - they get $4.40 contribution toward covering fixed costs for a seven buck paperback and  $4 for a ten dollar eBook.  While some paperbacks are destroyed as not sold, most of them will sell for more than $0.60 as remainders.</p><p>Add in that they probably look at eBooks as eating into the hardcover market (which is much higher margin) more than paperback and you can see the logic.  That being said, Baen has managed to sell eBooks at $3 a pop (webscriptions - 5-7 books at a time admittedly) for many years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's why they 're so expensive : Amazon takes 30 - 60 \ % .
It really costs near nothing to print and ship a paperback , maybe $ 0.60 or so .
The Amazon fees on paperbooks are 15-30 \ % .
The math is simple to the publishers - they get $ 4.40 contribution toward covering fixed costs for a seven buck paperback and $ 4 for a ten dollar eBook .
While some paperbacks are destroyed as not sold , most of them will sell for more than $ 0.60 as remainders.Add in that they probably look at eBooks as eating into the hardcover market ( which is much higher margin ) more than paperback and you can see the logic .
That being said , Baen has managed to sell eBooks at $ 3 a pop ( webscriptions - 5-7 books at a time admittedly ) for many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's why they're so expensive:  Amazon takes 30 - 60\%.
It really costs near nothing to print and ship a paperback, maybe $0.60 or so.
The Amazon fees on paperbooks are 15-30\%.
The math is simple to the publishers - they get $4.40 contribution toward covering fixed costs for a seven buck paperback and  $4 for a ten dollar eBook.
While some paperbacks are destroyed as not sold, most of them will sell for more than $0.60 as remainders.Add in that they probably look at eBooks as eating into the hardcover market (which is much higher margin) more than paperback and you can see the logic.
That being said, Baen has managed to sell eBooks at $3 a pop (webscriptions - 5-7 books at a time admittedly) for many years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242</id>
	<title>Can someone explain to me why people buy this crap</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1264874520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What's wrong with real books?
</p><p>
Used bookstores are great.  Can you re-sell your used "eBook"?  Can you buy used "eBooks".
</p><p>
This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them.
</p><p>
Content will be more tightly controlled and the whole thing only means higher prices to read anything.
</p><p>
People are stupid if they fall for this bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with real books ?
Used bookstores are great .
Can you re-sell your used " eBook " ?
Can you buy used " eBooks " .
This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them .
Content will be more tightly controlled and the whole thing only means higher prices to read anything .
People are stupid if they fall for this bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What's wrong with real books?
Used bookstores are great.
Can you re-sell your used "eBook"?
Can you buy used "eBooks".
This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them.
Content will be more tightly controlled and the whole thing only means higher prices to read anything.
People are stupid if they fall for this bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963450</id>
	<title>I think amazon will win this one.</title>
	<author>dhickman</author>
	<datestamp>1264875720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The kindle was designed for book junkies, and for people who like to read newspapers/periodicals.  Does it have limitations, yes, but it does do its key functions well, deliver text content anywhere there is a cell signal with a very long battery life.<br>
<br>
There are several key markets for books.<br>
<br>
Premium customers - new books in hardback<br>
technical customers - technical books.<br>
children books<br>
paperback customers<br>
bargain hunters<br>
periodicals -<br>
<br>
The kindle is aimed at the premium, paperback, periodical, and bargain hunters.<br>
<br>
Amazon has realized that only their premium customers will even pay for the 9.99 price for new books.  If I pay that kind of price for a book, I want the dead tree trophied on my book shelf with the thousands of other dead trees in my house, so I can re read them later in life.<br>
<br>
Personally I use my kindle for disposable media, like news papers ( the oklahoman and St. Louis Post dispatch) and magazines ( reason, mit tech review and reader digest.)  All those combined equals a little over $20 a month, that before the kindle, I never would subscribe to.<br>
<br>
When I am in the mood I usualy do the following to get free and cheap books, usually classics.<br>
<br>
1.  Every day or so amazon will offer a free book on the kindle, to lure you into a series ( it works, i usually end up buying the free book and the others in paper form)<br>
<br>
2.  type "-domain" in the kindle search bar.  It will return all of the current free and cheap books.  Usually around 20,000 or so.<br>
<br>
3.  Go to <a href="http://www.feedbooks.com/kindleguide" title="feedbooks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.feedbooks.com/kindleguide</a> [feedbooks.com] with the browser on the kindle.  That will download a "book" that will allow you access to most of the guttenberg and other free book repositories on the intertubes.<br>
<br>
Due to the ease of free content, amazon has been posting low cost collections of authors for usually a $1.00 that has excellent indexing and tables of contents.<br>
<br>
I think the ipad will have its market but until they can make a device that I only have to charge once a week is useable any time during that period to allow me to read ( usually 2-3 hours a day) in addition to all of it computer usage, I will stick with my netbook and kindle in my backpack.<br>
<br> <br>
dhh</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kindle was designed for book junkies , and for people who like to read newspapers/periodicals .
Does it have limitations , yes , but it does do its key functions well , deliver text content anywhere there is a cell signal with a very long battery life .
There are several key markets for books .
Premium customers - new books in hardback technical customers - technical books .
children books paperback customers bargain hunters periodicals - The kindle is aimed at the premium , paperback , periodical , and bargain hunters .
Amazon has realized that only their premium customers will even pay for the 9.99 price for new books .
If I pay that kind of price for a book , I want the dead tree trophied on my book shelf with the thousands of other dead trees in my house , so I can re read them later in life .
Personally I use my kindle for disposable media , like news papers ( the oklahoman and St. Louis Post dispatch ) and magazines ( reason , mit tech review and reader digest .
) All those combined equals a little over $ 20 a month , that before the kindle , I never would subscribe to .
When I am in the mood I usualy do the following to get free and cheap books , usually classics .
1. Every day or so amazon will offer a free book on the kindle , to lure you into a series ( it works , i usually end up buying the free book and the others in paper form ) 2. type " -domain " in the kindle search bar .
It will return all of the current free and cheap books .
Usually around 20,000 or so .
3. Go to http : //www.feedbooks.com/kindleguide [ feedbooks.com ] with the browser on the kindle .
That will download a " book " that will allow you access to most of the guttenberg and other free book repositories on the intertubes .
Due to the ease of free content , amazon has been posting low cost collections of authors for usually a $ 1.00 that has excellent indexing and tables of contents .
I think the ipad will have its market but until they can make a device that I only have to charge once a week is useable any time during that period to allow me to read ( usually 2-3 hours a day ) in addition to all of it computer usage , I will stick with my netbook and kindle in my backpack .
dhh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kindle was designed for book junkies, and for people who like to read newspapers/periodicals.
Does it have limitations, yes, but it does do its key functions well, deliver text content anywhere there is a cell signal with a very long battery life.
There are several key markets for books.
Premium customers - new books in hardback
technical customers - technical books.
children books
paperback customers
bargain hunters
periodicals -

The kindle is aimed at the premium, paperback, periodical, and bargain hunters.
Amazon has realized that only their premium customers will even pay for the 9.99 price for new books.
If I pay that kind of price for a book, I want the dead tree trophied on my book shelf with the thousands of other dead trees in my house, so I can re read them later in life.
Personally I use my kindle for disposable media, like news papers ( the oklahoman and St. Louis Post dispatch) and magazines ( reason, mit tech review and reader digest.
)  All those combined equals a little over $20 a month, that before the kindle, I never would subscribe to.
When I am in the mood I usualy do the following to get free and cheap books, usually classics.
1.  Every day or so amazon will offer a free book on the kindle, to lure you into a series ( it works, i usually end up buying the free book and the others in paper form)

2.  type "-domain" in the kindle search bar.
It will return all of the current free and cheap books.
Usually around 20,000 or so.
3.  Go to http://www.feedbooks.com/kindleguide [feedbooks.com] with the browser on the kindle.
That will download a "book" that will allow you access to most of the guttenberg and other free book repositories on the intertubes.
Due to the ease of free content, amazon has been posting low cost collections of authors for usually a $1.00 that has excellent indexing and tables of contents.
I think the ipad will have its market but until they can make a device that I only have to charge once a week is useable any time during that period to allow me to read ( usually 2-3 hours a day) in addition to all of it computer usage, I will stick with my netbook and kindle in my backpack.
dhh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963620</id>
	<title>Are Macmillian ran by retards?</title>
	<author>CrypticSpawn</author>
	<datestamp>1264876620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talk about jumping on a bandwagon before you know where it is going.  I guess if I looked at Apples track record and saw everything they have done up to date, I would probably say, it is a good bet it will be a hit.  However, they don't even know what type of people will buy the ipad.  I was just thinking it would be a cool mini tablet system, depending on what applications it comes already installed on it, but now that I know what the applications are, they are going to have to make a whole lot more for me to spend over 700 dollars for wifi and 3G.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about jumping on a bandwagon before you know where it is going .
I guess if I looked at Apples track record and saw everything they have done up to date , I would probably say , it is a good bet it will be a hit .
However , they do n't even know what type of people will buy the ipad .
I was just thinking it would be a cool mini tablet system , depending on what applications it comes already installed on it , but now that I know what the applications are , they are going to have to make a whole lot more for me to spend over 700 dollars for wifi and 3G .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about jumping on a bandwagon before you know where it is going.
I guess if I looked at Apples track record and saw everything they have done up to date, I would probably say, it is a good bet it will be a hit.
However, they don't even know what type of people will buy the ipad.
I was just thinking it would be a cool mini tablet system, depending on what applications it comes already installed on it, but now that I know what the applications are, they are going to have to make a whole lot more for me to spend over 700 dollars for wifi and 3G.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964902</id>
	<title>Re:MacMillan</title>
	<author>Fencepost</author>
	<datestamp>1264885080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon doesn't have any reason to delist the paper versions, they still make the same amount they did before. If Macmillan ebooks aren't available through Amazon, it doesn't really hurt Amazon that much.<br><br>Also, if Amazon really wants to slap Macmillan, they can change how they list paper versions to imply that the publisher doesn't make electronic versions available while a literal reading says only that they're not available through Amazon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon does n't have any reason to delist the paper versions , they still make the same amount they did before .
If Macmillan ebooks are n't available through Amazon , it does n't really hurt Amazon that much.Also , if Amazon really wants to slap Macmillan , they can change how they list paper versions to imply that the publisher does n't make electronic versions available while a literal reading says only that they 're not available through Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon doesn't have any reason to delist the paper versions, they still make the same amount they did before.
If Macmillan ebooks aren't available through Amazon, it doesn't really hurt Amazon that much.Also, if Amazon really wants to slap Macmillan, they can change how they list paper versions to imply that the publisher doesn't make electronic versions available while a literal reading says only that they're not available through Amazon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963818</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Frools</author>
	<datestamp>1264877700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost <i>even more</i> than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.</p></div><p>eBooks are not images, they are text. They dont have resolution in that sense. <br>
iBooks is supposedly going to be selling ebooks in the ePub format which is just html/css in a zip container.<br>
I suppose cover images might be higher resolution but i doubt it, the iPad is only 1024x768 to the Kindle's 800x600 or the Kindle DX's 1200x824. <br>
<br>
Having said that I too would not be surprised if iBooks was more expensive than Amazon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle , since they 're higher resolution and in color.eBooks are not images , they are text .
They dont have resolution in that sense .
iBooks is supposedly going to be selling ebooks in the ePub format which is just html/css in a zip container .
I suppose cover images might be higher resolution but i doubt it , the iPad is only 1024x768 to the Kindle 's 800x600 or the Kindle DX 's 1200x824 .
Having said that I too would not be surprised if iBooks was more expensive than Amazon ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if iPad e-books cost even more than on Kindle, since they're higher resolution and in color.eBooks are not images, they are text.
They dont have resolution in that sense.
iBooks is supposedly going to be selling ebooks in the ePub format which is just html/css in a zip container.
I suppose cover images might be higher resolution but i doubt it, the iPad is only 1024x768 to the Kindle's 800x600 or the Kindle DX's 1200x824.
Having said that I too would not be surprised if iBooks was more expensive than Amazon ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30980958</id>
	<title>Re:Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The real reason why books from Apple are likely to be more expensive (as are those from Sony today) is that Apple is a small retailer relative to Amazon. Amazon has much more negotiating strength. The same things that Apple can and does do in negotiations with record labels Amazon does with publishers."</p><p>So why, despite Apple having the largest online music store, are they also the most expensive?</p><p>I don't think Apple's pricing has anything to do with purchasing power, because even when they do have purchasing power as with iTunes, they're still the most expensive option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real reason why books from Apple are likely to be more expensive ( as are those from Sony today ) is that Apple is a small retailer relative to Amazon .
Amazon has much more negotiating strength .
The same things that Apple can and does do in negotiations with record labels Amazon does with publishers .
" So why , despite Apple having the largest online music store , are they also the most expensive ? I do n't think Apple 's pricing has anything to do with purchasing power , because even when they do have purchasing power as with iTunes , they 're still the most expensive option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real reason why books from Apple are likely to be more expensive (as are those from Sony today) is that Apple is a small retailer relative to Amazon.
Amazon has much more negotiating strength.
The same things that Apple can and does do in negotiations with record labels Amazon does with publishers.
"So why, despite Apple having the largest online music store, are they also the most expensive?I don't think Apple's pricing has anything to do with purchasing power, because even when they do have purchasing power as with iTunes, they're still the most expensive option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334</id>
	<title>Kindle v. iPad</title>
	<author>seanadams.com</author>
	<datestamp>1264867980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon knows they're going to have to be way cheaper in order to sell any more Kindles. The problem with the Kindle is, well, it kind of sucks. I am a regular Amazon customer and have been using one since the second version came out, but there are some major problems wth it.

<ol>
<li>Screen contrast. The Kindle's contrast ratio is worse than newspaper printing or the cheapest paperback. You can read it in direct sunlight, sure, but can you read it indoors without a 200W light bulb directly behind you?  I get eyestrain with it after just 15 minutes, but I can read a good LCD for hours.</li><li>	Bad for illustrations. More than half the books I read are technical in nature and have diagrams and equations that require zooming to read. The problem is zooming is incredibly slow and laborious on the Kindle, and in most cases the bitmap image quality is not sufficient to read anyway.
</li><li>	Freagin slow. Right, it doesn't matter when you're just paging through a novel, but this makes it useless for shopping for books, web browsing, or quickly finding something in a reference book.
</li><li>	Titles are too expensive. Many paperbacks are SAME price delivered 2nd-day UPS to my doorstep (with Prime free shipping). What the fuck? And then more expensive titles are only a few dollars cheaper for the Kindle edition but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree.</li>
</ol><p>
Apple is going to absolutely slaughter them on 1 through 3, maybe not 4. I'm looking forward to having another eBook reader to choose from.
</p><p>
Amazon dropping publishers is just an offense to me as their customer. I have no sympathy for them here. Maybe some day ePaper will deliver on its promise but for now I've given up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon knows they 're going to have to be way cheaper in order to sell any more Kindles .
The problem with the Kindle is , well , it kind of sucks .
I am a regular Amazon customer and have been using one since the second version came out , but there are some major problems wth it .
Screen contrast .
The Kindle 's contrast ratio is worse than newspaper printing or the cheapest paperback .
You can read it in direct sunlight , sure , but can you read it indoors without a 200W light bulb directly behind you ?
I get eyestrain with it after just 15 minutes , but I can read a good LCD for hours .
Bad for illustrations .
More than half the books I read are technical in nature and have diagrams and equations that require zooming to read .
The problem is zooming is incredibly slow and laborious on the Kindle , and in most cases the bitmap image quality is not sufficient to read anyway .
Freagin slow .
Right , it does n't matter when you 're just paging through a novel , but this makes it useless for shopping for books , web browsing , or quickly finding something in a reference book .
Titles are too expensive .
Many paperbacks are SAME price delivered 2nd-day UPS to my doorstep ( with Prime free shipping ) .
What the fuck ?
And then more expensive titles are only a few dollars cheaper for the Kindle edition but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree .
Apple is going to absolutely slaughter them on 1 through 3 , maybe not 4 .
I 'm looking forward to having another eBook reader to choose from .
Amazon dropping publishers is just an offense to me as their customer .
I have no sympathy for them here .
Maybe some day ePaper will deliver on its promise but for now I 've given up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon knows they're going to have to be way cheaper in order to sell any more Kindles.
The problem with the Kindle is, well, it kind of sucks.
I am a regular Amazon customer and have been using one since the second version came out, but there are some major problems wth it.
Screen contrast.
The Kindle's contrast ratio is worse than newspaper printing or the cheapest paperback.
You can read it in direct sunlight, sure, but can you read it indoors without a 200W light bulb directly behind you?
I get eyestrain with it after just 15 minutes, but I can read a good LCD for hours.
Bad for illustrations.
More than half the books I read are technical in nature and have diagrams and equations that require zooming to read.
The problem is zooming is incredibly slow and laborious on the Kindle, and in most cases the bitmap image quality is not sufficient to read anyway.
Freagin slow.
Right, it doesn't matter when you're just paging through a novel, but this makes it useless for shopping for books, web browsing, or quickly finding something in a reference book.
Titles are too expensive.
Many paperbacks are SAME price delivered 2nd-day UPS to my doorstep (with Prime free shipping).
What the fuck?
And then more expensive titles are only a few dollars cheaper for the Kindle edition but of vastly poorer quality and without the ownership and durability advantages of a dead tree.
Apple is going to absolutely slaughter them on 1 through 3, maybe not 4.
I'm looking forward to having another eBook reader to choose from.
Amazon dropping publishers is just an offense to me as their customer.
I have no sympathy for them here.
Maybe some day ePaper will deliver on its promise but for now I've given up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30967320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30977910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30968562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30968098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30980958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1341235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30969426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30969426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30968098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30968562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30977910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30966632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30980958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30967320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1341235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30962514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30964256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30963970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1341235.30965004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
