[FM Discuss] final TOC

[Joshua Facemyer]

One thing I wanted to add (but didn't think it was relevant enough, 
though I do now) was that I believe people who are web-savvy enough to 
find what they want on the web probably won't be lured into buying a 
book about it except for a few specific reasons: they like having a 
"handy" (in the real sense) reference; they like reading a paper book 
(which is actually probably the majority of book readers; more relevant 
for a reading type book as opposed to a reference type book); they want 
a "souvenir".

Now, obviously that doesn't exhaust the list, but it makes the point 
that most of these buyers won't likely expect a book update, and will be 
happy with online updates.

I'm not sure I even understand what type of updates the editors are 
talking about, in this regard (sorry for my ignorance :( ) - how in the 
world do you provide an update to a paper book without doing it on the 
web?!  Or sending a pamphlet to all buyers when updates are made...!

The only way you can provide updates is online.  If they don't want to 
deal with non-updatable books, I dare say they shouldn't be selling 
printed books...  I don't mean to sound trite, just can't comprehend 
that concept of mixing two seemingly unmixable publishing models.

Which brings me to another point I wanted to make and can do so 
intelligently now:  the models we're talking about are more authoring 
models and not really publishing models.  While you can mix authoring 
models, I don't think the publishing models are that flexible.  That's 
why we have screen readers now - but it's less a mix of models and more 
of a new model, in my opinion.

JF

Andy Oram wrote:
> I do find that argument a good one. Thanks. I believe the reason some editors at computer publications are talking about providing updates is purely for competitive reasons. We know that people are saying, "I won't buy a print book because the information will be out of date; I'll just get it online" and we feel we can provide a better product than what comes up in a web search, but we need also to compete on the basis of staying current.
>
> Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joshua Facemyer <jfacemyer at gmail.com>
> To: discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> Sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:28:18 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: [FM Discuss] final TOC
>
>
>
> Andy Oram wrote:
>   
>> Thanks, those are good ideas. The reason people who buy a book should get updates is that the normal book-for-sale model is a closed one. The book is not freely downloadable. So a publisher can't ask someone to just go online for updates. To have the whole book online is a different model--and we do that with some books under a CC license.
>>
>>     
> But I think you've made my point by distinguishing between the two 
> models.  If you're offering a book online as well as a printed version, 
> you're working with two different models - there's no way, really, to 
> avoid it.
>
> People who view a book online only expect what is told to them about 
> updates - if I offer a book and say it will be updated, they'll want 
> updates.  If I just offer a text and say nothing about updates, nobody 
> can rightfully want updates.
>
> This is even more true for a printed book, to the extent that most 
> people who buy printed books likely assume that they've gotten 
> everything they've paid for - unless you explicitly indicate that they 
> will be provided updates.
>
> I don't believe this would be a problem, if you wanted to tell them that 
> they can get updates online.  But it would be a problem if they were 
> expecting online updates as part of their purchase, and you provided none.
>
> Anyway, I think it's best to keep the distribution models separate 
> (really, I don't think there's a choice).  If you want to bridge the 
> gap, you'd start to consider selling e-books, which theoretically could 
> allow providing the customer updates easily to his purchased product.
>
> Anyway, I really think that anyone purchasing a printed book would be 
> absolutely out of his mind to expect any sort of update unless one were 
> at least strongly implied in the product description.  There is no such 
> implication contained in a printed book that derives from an online 
> book.  And, seeing as this would only be expected in certain types of 
> publishing (maybe medical or academic where that may be standard in some 
> instances), I wouldn't foresee any problems with keeping the standard 
> models.
>
> JF
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>
>